mHiiwiuuimuinitiHmUmuMu 

fiMiiilfiiJillliititihuuitfiiliiauiUU! 

lil!JJI>(3IJJI}lill<l(If(Hl<f/ll)JHItl  III, 


ijif  (j)jii)/ifiui>iiiitil^Ui)r)'ioii;ii  :lMt<i 
Ji)IJJU)*«)«ilfii)  <|i)UIJIi(l(l(IH)Ui:(rii:i 

»(ii))mi<nijiiHiJt'u(iJiJi:liii;iiiiwiiii<i:' 
■' '■' ■■■■miimdiKi.'iii!  iM  >j  ! 

,..,., ,(JJ()!l(ll  IKdlilllij  tdiij 

i))tJi(ii/i/ii>irt*(iitii(((iiiiKiifiil  if'ii'i"!  ' 
ilfiji  li,'ljli>iIiliUi(iil  (III  ililiil  lUlii  II 1 1 


i<ii)liiwi<iii(ii(i>iiniiijifiriiilJi  < "ill  110 
'"DjiHiiKi'iniririiiifiKi.iifiiiii.iii  [<i))i<;' 

(lll(J)IH(riMI)IIWI)lllfil!ir<l|llll  HIIU' 
ltllt/U))Uli;i!HII'l>IIli(llll!llllill  I'HiC. 

iifji/iiiJi<i>ilJi^iiO(i<inni.'ii/ii(!i»!i!fii 
ii(lii(M<!(ii(iiiimi)i(iniiii(|(niiiiiiitiii 
irt;(i(iiii)i«iil)iai»iiiMirif,i  (iiiiMliiiiii 
iriiij(juiiif;i(iiiiiiiiiiSi|iiS.ili  inn  "I'lii 
iiiiiliiMHHiuiiiinriiKili  ;iiil!i|i  l!    ii 

WHii)iniiiji;iiiljii(iiiihii(!»iif!l!i<iMMn  >i 

_..i(n»iil/»fl)1l7|llUI/!tll(l(,lil  'Itl'l  |i|illMIIll 

iifiiiIlilniimiiiii(i)iiiiiiiiiii(!iifM'i(iiii  '!'■"'  'i 
ibjiiiii  iiij(((M)i((iii[!iiiiiii!i|>ii.;i.'!fi|i<i;i'iijl  ' 

tiilUHH'i!ilili',il'lti'ii'"ll'!"ll!'('''",'' I  ''!''' 
U()(ifii((|tji(l!miii;il(iat([<i)illiiii  'KjTi 

ii!iiii!(i(iKijimii(iii,!iim)iin|ii|iii»?ii' 
inihimuiimjiiiiifiiiiiisMijiHi  it.Miii  i.i 

lJI)))IH('->ll(illHIIIIIMIIIill(H|lltlrll'.lll.( 

iiiiiKrtuiiijKiiininiiiiiiiioiiiiiijMiiKii' 
„.j)mininui  imiMiimilMKiiDli'ii'i' iiM. 

lll(('ll'<l|"l»'liHII'IIJlilH'»l'li'IIII.M'll"lll" 
llj  llllWl  lUlfiriDllllniMlllHl  (  lllflllilillM' 
l|ll[(|lllll)i/lIIUUl)HII(lil!l!lllllM!SI-l  'Hill 

iniDKiniiMisiiiiiitmuiiiijiiiHiMi*  Mt'i'!"' 

^.,.,^,1  fllilJIllliKIIIHKDIIIIilHIIIIIKiml  mllltl';' 
Bf«»(ill»|iliiillHtlKli;i!liii(ill»iJi|ii|)  <l;ll    t  inp 

nlhiHiiMi  (1111(1)11  iiiiiHMiiiiiiiiiiil'M II  i;i(ln  (I  I 
■Bli)inflii(ui hiiiiiiiiiijiHiiitil'iiiiiiiiiiiii  111!  lUiii 
!f«t«ni(llH'iiit''!<'it'i  I  il'i'i'i' l'i'''"l':i''i' '''•'' 


, ,....iiiiiiii(ijii|liiiii     , 

»iniiiiit»i|niiin(f|m;iiliHI(iiiiini!iu|il(,iiii!|ijn'ii; 
.(iiiiiiiiiii  'i)ii!iiil(itiiiiii)iir(inimiiiii[iiii)    III  iii 

{ hi  lllllllii  IIIIIHI)IIII((II*I  IlllllUIUint  'll.l      Mi',' 

"'imiitiio RMriiMiiii  itiiiiiiiiiiiiii  iiiifi  ji.'i  !  Hill 
«jlr!nip.'>)M!l!ll!!!i'M!M!!!!!Uli}||!l![|||;|i;];;{;!;i: 


Jnmtiliiiaiiriijiiiit  iitiiiiiii'iiiimi  !!  Ill  i:<|r,'  I 

li  5  ifiitmn  (iiiifiiiniiinriiiliiiiiii  I   i(i;i!i  (1 

lylii  iiniiiii  (liiniiinniHiii'ii'  iiidii  1  (KiiMi'l' 


i)i><  iiiiii>l(iiri(;it<  iKiiiDi  iiiiii  1 
III)  ti  iniimruHi  tiiiiiiHiiiiiil;' 
...1  r<(u»iiliiii|iiiiii  tiiiirnihinii  ■         ,  ,  , 
aHll'nii'ii^i  'i'i|<"'""i'i"' '  "''iM'"""  •' 


III  iivi  1  luaniiMiiitiii Hiiiij  III  ill   II ;  I  iu'  >   ; 

111  i  lilllfl  IllilKIIKIHl'ltlll  iilll  IMll  .'til  <  'I'll     I' 

I  viiiiiiuiU  i|niii>injiiiiiiiiiii|>iii|iiiiii|ri  1  I  ii.» 

■-     lIliHHIIIllUHIIlllinlil  I  !|ii:l  lllllM^li  " 

nililHlllllilll|HI)|lllliittlll|l)  )l   Mil  ;  :   ;' 

uriniHiiuiilMiiiii  iiiinijumii.in;';-, 
jilin  !lt(l{l(l^|(!llll(Ul)ill^lUlll|■ll•l:' 
^llllTlllHII  IlliHIU)  I  I  I  i|ill'-  lll.i  I  'I; 

i?mi»iriitiiln|!i)iili  i.ili  "iiiii  I'r  ' 
iiiiMMnuiliii  iinii  ti  ii'i'ii'iii  "  i| 
I UiHiimiiiiiii  inin  li  I'liiiiiiiiii  ||  •' 

lUHoiHIIlMtlllliJIII  I  1  Ilillllllill':  '1   ■ 

.,.m»jiiiwii»liiii!i  <!<iii  'lii; 

"  Nfinil  ilriUlitiili  I  nhli  i;|i 

niuiiirHMKiliiiiii 
((iiin  f|«ii!  t«ii  'II 

riij  nijiilnma  (i>?'i 

miifl  (iJimrtij  ill  I. 

-■- '  ■■'lilt  tiiiiti'*'. 

,»l«ii  uiliiiii 

liuilli;!;!!!!; 

ii?u*Hlii|ii;.:i' 

"  'i 


LIBRARY 

UNtVFRSFTY  OF 

SAiN  01  EGO 


] 

J 


^J^^.Mf^''-^  ■ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/clothingworkersoOOamaliala 


THE   CLOTHING   WORKERS 
OF   CHICAGO 

1910-1922 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD 

AMALGAMATED  CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  AMERICA 

CHICAGO.  1922 


This  book  on  "  The  Clothing  Workers  of  Chicago  "  is 
presented  by  the  Chicago  Joint  Board  to  the  delegates  to 
the  Fifth  Biennial  Convention  of  the  Amalgamated  Cloth- 
ing Workers,  in  Chicago,  May  8,  1922.  The  book  was  pre- 
pared by  the  Research  Department  of  the  Amalgamated 
Clothing  Workers,  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Leo  Wolman, 
with  the  co-operation  of  Miss  Eleanor  Mack,  Mr.  H.  K. 
Herwitz,  of  the  Research  Department,  and  Mr.  Paul  Wan- 
der. The  third  part  on  Government  in  Industry  was  written 
by  Mr.  Paul  Wander. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Chapter  I — The  Chicago  Joint  Board 1 

Part  I — The  Growth  of  Organization. 

Chapter  II— The  Strike  of  1910 17 

Chapter  III — The  Development  of  Arbitration 49 

Chapter  IV — The  Break  From  the  Garment  Workers ...  72 

Chapter  V— The  Strike  of  1915 95 

Chapter  VI — The  Organization  of  the  Chicago  Market  109 

Part  II — Wages  and  Hours. 

Chapter  VH— Wages  and  Hours,  1911-1921 125 

Chapter  VIII — The  Great  Wage  Arbitrations 144 

Part  III — Government  in  Industry. 

Chapter  IX — Introduction 189 

Chapter  X — The  Powers  of  Management 196 

Chapter  XI — Discipline  and  Discharge 229 

Chapter  XII — Working  Conditions 281 

Chapter  XIII — The  Adjustment  of  Wages 299 

Chapter  XIV — The  Principle  of  Union  Preference 330 

Appendix  I — Index  of  Decisions 415 

Appendix  II — Wage  Tables 421 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD 

For  ten  years  the  men's  clothing  industry  of  Chicago 
has  been  the  seat  of  one  of  the  most  important  experiments 
in  industrial  government  ever  conducted  in  this  country. 
Beginning  in  1911  with  the  famous  agreement  between 
Hart,  S chaff ner  and  Marx  and  the  clothing  workers,  and 
extended  in  1919  to  cover  the  whole  Chicago  market,  gov- 
ernment in  the  men's  clothing  industry  has  come  to  embrace 
in  1922  a  citizenry  of  from  40,000  to  50,000  men  and  women. 
In  their  daily  lives  in  the  shops,  in  their  search  for  jobs, 
these  workers  subscribe  to  rules  and  regulations,  standards 
of  workmanship  and  of  conduct,  in  whose  making  they  and 
their  representatives  have  had  a  voice.  From  the  first  both 
employers  and  workmen  have  reahzed  that  there  can  be  no 
industrial  peace  and  no  machinery  of  adjustment  and 
stabihzation  without  the  cooperation  and  support  of  a  strong 
organization  of  working  men  and  women.  The  develop- 
ment of  the  machinery  of  arbitration,  about  which  so  much 
has  been  said,  was,  consequently,  at  each  step  accompanied 
by  the  growth  in  nimibers  and  in  power  of  the  trade  union 
of  clothing  workers.  Side  by  side  with  the  extension  of 
industrial  rules,  procedure,  and  practices,  the  labor  organi- 
zation in  the  clothing  industry  of  Chicago  has  assumed  new 
functions,  and  has  slowly  but  progressively  met  and  solved 
the  problems  of  its  own  internal  government.  The  story  of 
collective  bargaining  in  the  clothing  industry  in  Chicago  is 
no  less  a  story  of  the  development  of  this  internal  govern- 
ment of  the  union  than  of  the  rise  of  agreements,  trade 
boards,  and  arbitration. 

The  eight  years  from  1911  to  1919  in  the  history  of  the 
Union  were  the  years  of  the  rise  of  organized  labor  in  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx,  the  solidification  and  strengthening  of 
the  union  of  employees  of  that  firm,  and  the  gradual  ex- 


.^i\' 


y 


2         CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

tension  of  membership  to  the  employees  of  other  manufac- 
turers cuhninating  in  the  market  agreement  of  1919.  During 
the  first  period  the  membership  remained  comparatively 
small,  varying  from  about  2000  in  1910-1913  to  8000  in 
1918-1919.  The  organization  campaigns  of  the  union,  the 
war,  and  the  economic  policies  of  the  federal  government, 
however,  soon  had  their  effects.  By  June,  1919,  member- 
ship had  risen  to  25,000.  In  the  period  from  June  to  Decem- 
ber, 1919,  15,000  more  were  added,  and  from  that  time  to 
•^    /  the  present  the  membership  has  risen  and  fallen  with  the 

expansion  and  contraction  of  the  industry.  In  December, 
1921,  the  time  of  the  last  official  count,  the  number  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Chicago  Joint  Board  in  good  standing  was 
40,024 — practically  all  of  the  clothing  workers  of  the  city. 

This  sudden  expansion  of  the  organization  brought  with 
it  new  responsibilities  and  problems.  Sudden  accessions  in 
membership,  no  matter  how  large,  do  not  mean  unified  and 
permanent  organization.  The  interest  and  loyalty  of  the 
newcomers  had  to  be  enlisted  just  as  the  experience  of  eight 
years  had  effected  the  solidarity  of  the  employees  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx.  The  machinery  of  union  government 
had  to  be  extended  to  meet  the  needs  of  thousands  of  new 
people.  It  became  necessary  to  extend  and  sharpen  the  checks 
and  balances  which  still  seem  to  be  an  essential  element  of  all 
democratic  government;  so  that  the  rank  and  file  could  en- 
trust wide  powers  to  officers  who  would  at  the  same  time 
remain  responsive  to  the  wishes  of  their  constituents.  The 
ratification  of  the  1919  agreements  brought  under  the  opera- 
tion of  the  collective  agreement  employers  who  had  long 
been  bitterly  hostile  to  trade  unions  in  general  and  to  the 
clothing  workers'  union  in  particular.  With  these  and  other 
employers  the  union  had  to  establish  immediate  and  daily 
relations  designed  to  further  the  prompt  and  amicable  ad- 
justment of  matters  of  principle,  interpretation  and  pro- 
cedure. 

To  these  difficult  tasks  the  union  brought  a  type  of  organi- 
zation which,  in  spite  of  incidental  defects  common  to  human 
institutions,  has  gone  far  to  meet  adequately  the  situations 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD  3 

with  which  it  has  been  confronted.    As  a  practical  matter, 
then,  the  union  was  faced  in  1919  with  the  task  of  building  a 

up  an  administrative  and  legislative  machinery  qualified  to        '^*^   ^** 
perform  the  functions  that  were  immediately  demanded  of    L/f  j-^ 
it.    These  functions  are  almost  as  varied  as  are  the  functions   f  Jjr 
of  all  organized  government.     A  large  labor  organization  j^ 

has  its  officers  and  official  activities.    The  conduct  of  business  ^.^J^y- 
requires   funds ;  members,   therefore,   must   be  taxed   and  ' '         ^  ^         / 
financial  safeguards  be  devised.     Labor  organizations  rest    i^y        ,  V 
on  certain   social   and   economic   principles.     Educational  >  Jv^ 

machinery  must  be  created  to  stimulate  the  discussion  of      n  y/ 
these  principles  and  to  teach  the  members  of  the  union  their     ir^ 
significance.     The  victories  of  the  organization  bring  to  its  3 
members,  among  other  things,  the  shorter  workday  and  addi-  i  A/^ 

tional  leisure.     A  truly  democratic  organization  will  help      .  «r 
its  members  to  employ  their  leisure  wisely.     The  organiza-  n  r  (] 
tion  of  hundreds  of  non-union  shops  and  the  installation  of 
continuous    machinery    of    investigation    and    adjustment  v 

means  the  creation  of  a  staff  of  supervisors,  negotiators,  It^T 

and  technical  experts,  willing  and  competent  to  perform    / v' 
these  new  duties.    Finally  the  obligation  conferred  upon  the,-  ^ 
union,  through  the  preferential  union  shop,  to  furnish  the 
employer  with  workmen  necessitates  the  organization   of 
emplojTnent  offices  and  an  understanding  of  the  problems 
of  employment  and  unemployment. 

So  far  as  general  union  business  is  concerned,  the  smallest 
political  unit  in  the  Chicago  union  at  the  present  time  is 
the  local  union.  Although  the  Amalgamated  Clothing 
Workers  is  an  industrial  union  in  the  sense  that  it  presents  A 

a  uniform  policy  for  all  workers  regardless  of  craft,  some  v 

of  the  locals  still  retain  their  craft  distinctions.    In  the  main,  . 

however,  the  local  unions  are  divided  with  reference  to  the 
principal  branches  of  the  industry  and  the  nationality  and 
sex  of  the  workers.  Thus,  the  eleven  local  unions  in  Chicago  , 
at  present  comprise  six  local  unions  of  coatmakers,  and  five ) 
locals  of  cutters  and  trimmers,  vest  makers,  pants  makers, 
spongers  and  examiners,  and  machinists.  The  six  local 
unions  of  coatmakers  consist  of  five  language  locals — Bo- 


^1 


4         CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

hemian,  Polish,  Lithuanian,  English,  and  Italian — and  one 
local  union  of  women.  The  membership  of  the  local  unions 
varied  in  December,  1921,  from  80  for  local  272  to  11,510 
for  local  89.  For  all  practical  purposes,  the  local  union  is 
the  place  to  which  the  members  of  the  same  branch  of  the 
industry  or  of  the  same  craft  may  come  to  discuss  their 
problems  in  relation  to  the  policy  of  the  organization,  make 
suggestions  to  the  Joint  Board,  discipline  members  who  have 
violated  the  principles  of  the  organization,  and  in  general 
act  as  a  center  for  the  consideration  of  questions  that  are 
of  concern  to  its  members. 

\      The  effective  and  important  unit  of  government  in  the 
*  ^^yj^    union  is,  however,  the  Joint  Board.    This  body  is  composed 
^*^  of  85  delegates  elected  annually  by  the  local  unions,  a  mana- 

ger and  financial  secretary-treasurer  elected  by  the  entire 
membership,  and  two  deputies-at-large  similarly  elected. 
Because  of  the  size  of  the  Joint  Board,  the  conduct  of  cur- 
rent, routine  business  is  entrusted  to  a  smaller  board  of 
directors,  a  finance  committee,  and  an  appeal  board  which 
hears  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  local  unions.  In  the 
Joint  Board  is  centered  the  collection  and  disbursal  of 
money,  the  initiation  and  execution  of  the  policy  of  the  union 
in  the  industry,  and  the  supervision  over  the  staff  of  the 
organization. 

Probably  one  of  the  principal  features  of  the  Chicago 
union  of  clothing  workers  is  the  centralization  of  its  finances 
in  the  Joint  Board.  The  money  collected  through  dues  goes 
not  to  the  local  union  but  to  the  Joint  Board,  where  it  is 
distributed  and  is  subject  to  strict  and  frequent  auditing 
by  both  the  local  and  national  offices  of  the  union.  The 
dues  of  two  dollars  a  month  which  is  required  of  each  member 
of  the  union  is  at  the  outset  allocated  in  the  following  way: 

25  cents  for  building  and  maintenance 

50  cents  for  the  national  office 

20  cents  for  the  reserve  fund 

5%  cents  for  the  local  unions 

7%  cents  for  the  papers  published  by  the  national  office 

92  cents  for  the  Joint  Board. 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD 


5 


The  sum  received  by  the  Joint  Board  is  used  to  pay  sala- 
ries, rent,  organization  expenses,  the  expenses  of  shop  meet- 
ings, donations,  and  the  loss  in  wages  through  union  business 
of  oiRcials  who  work  in  the  shop. 

The  relation  of  the  union  to  the  machinery  of  arbitration 
and  adjustment  of  disputes  has  made  necessary  the  develop- 
ment of  an  additional  unit  of  government  and  of  elaborate 
administrative  machinery.  A  large  part  of  the  life  of  the 
factory  worker  is  after  all  spent  in  the 'shop.  There  he  has 
his  disputes  with  the  foreman,  objects  'to  rules,  protests  his 
new  piece  rates,  feels  discrimination  in  the  failure  to  apply 
the  equal  division  of  work  principle,  and  participates  in  a, 
stoppage,  or  is  affected  by  one.  In  any  or  all  cases  adjust- 
ment must  be  made  promptly  and  on  the  spot.  Neither  the 
management  nor  the  worker  can  afford  to  wait  until  the 
point  at  issue  has  been  brought  to  the  local  union  or  to  the 
Joint  Board  and  there  settled.  For  matters  such  as  these 
the  employer  must  have  his  shop  representative  and  the 
union  its  shop  organization.  As  early  as  the  Hart,  Schaff  ner 
and  Marx  agreement,  therefore,  shops  acted  as  units  and 
elected  their  shop-chairman  and  assistant  shop-chairman  to 
represent  them  in  matters  affecting  their  interest  that  daily 
arose  within  the  shop.  With  the  signing  of  the  1919  agree- 
ments this  system  of  shop  representation  was  adopted 
throughout  the  market  and  the  shop  chairman  and  his  assist- 
ant everywhere  in  the  city  represents  his  fellow  workei's, 
meets  with  the  representatives  of  the  firm,  adjusts  differ- 
ences where  possible,  and  refers  difficult  cases  to  other  offi- 
cers of  the  union. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  the  clothing  industry  in  Chi- 
cago is  in  many  respects  a  unit.  The  union  makes  agree- 
ments not  only  with  individual  firms  but  with  the  market 
as  a  whole.  While  permitting  local  and  shop  settlements 
of  disputed  issues,  the  union  must  also  see  to  it  that  working 
conditions  approach  a  fair  degree  of  standardization.  This 
implies  a  certain  amount  of  uniformity  of  policy  throughout 
the  city.  Through  the  medium  of  hundreds  of  shop  chair- 
men, scattered  through  the  industry  and  working  under 


M 


oK' 


CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


4^ 


=5 


*V^ 


9 


i!^ 


varying  conditions,  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  attain  uniformity  and  standardization.  For  this  purpose, 
therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  have  another  set  of  officers,  with 
wider  fields  of  jurisdiction,  of  long  experience  and  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  industry  and  of  the  policy  of  the  union.  It  is, 
likewise,  desirable  to  give  to  either  employer  and  employee 
who  may  be  dissatisfied  with  a  ruling  of  the  shop  chairman, 
the  right  to  appeal  from  his  decision,  or  at  least  the  oppor- 
tunity to  discuss  the  matter  with  another  agent  of  the  union. 
Frequently  also  the  failure  of  a  shop  chairman  to  effect  a 
friendly  settlement  of  a  stubborn  case,  without  resort  to  the 
impartial  machinery,  makes  necessary  the  intervention  of  a 
higher  union  official,  who  by  reason  of  his  authority,  skill, 
and  experience  finally  reaches  an  amicable  adjustment.  To 
supplement  the  work  of  the  shop  chairman  in  this  way,  the 
Joint  Board  has  as  part  of  its  regular  staff  34  deputies,  32 
of  whom  are  elected  by  various  local  unions  and  2  by  the 
membership  at  large.  Of  the  first  group,  20  represent  the 
coat  makers;  5  the  pants  makers;  3  the  cutters;  3  the  vest 
makers ;  and  1  the  spongers,  examiners,  and  bushelmen.  To 
each  of  these  deputies  a  certain  branch  of  the  industry  or 
part  of  the  city  is  assigned  and  he  there  carries  on  his  work — 
visits  the  shops ;  settles  disputes ;  hears  grievances ;  sees  that 
union  conditions  are  observed;  and  acts  as  intermediary  be- 
tween  the  Joint  Board  and  the  shop. 

With  a  staff  so  large  and  duties  so  varied,  the  efficiency 
of  the  organization  must  depend  on  the  ability  of  its  officers 
to  coordinate  and  direct  the  work  of  the  men  and  women 
engaged  in  these  various  activities.  In  actual  practice  this 
task  of  direction  is  in  the  hands  of  Levin,  the  manager  of 
the  Joint  Board,  and  of  his  associates,  Marimpietri,  Rosen- 
blum,  Rissman,  and  Skala.  In  the  offices  of  the  Joint  Board 
on  Halsted  Street,  at  daily  conferences  and  meetings  lasting 
long  into  the  night,  the  day's  work  is  planned,  the  union 
policy  is  outlined,  and  men  are  assigned  to  their  jobs.  Every 
day  but  Sunday,  from  early  morning  to  late  night,  a  con- 
stant stream  of  men  and  women  winds  in  and  out  of  Le\'in's 
office.    Now  it  is  a  business  agent  seeking  advice  on  a  dif- 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD  7 

ficult  case  or  protesting  a  decision  of  the  Trade  Board ;  now 
it  is  a  delegation  from  a  contract  shop  complaining  that  the 
contractor  has  closed  his  shop  and  refused  to  pay  the  work- 
ers their  wages.  A  moment  later  it  is  a  worker  from  one 
of  the  shops  explaining  that  he  is  given  less  work  than  his 
fellows  in  the  same  shop,  while  he  has  a  wife  and  children 
to  support  and  can  earn  only  a  few  dollars  a  week.  Another 
comes  from  the  employment  office  across  the  hall  to  tell  a 
tale  of  discrimination  which  has  kept  him  unemployed  for  a 
month  while  the  clerk  in  the  employment  office  has  sent  hun- 
dreds of  other  members  with  the  same  qualifications  to  jobs 
he  might  have  had.  With  infinite  tact  and  patience  Levin 
listens  to  the  stories,  scribbles  notes  on  his  pad,  elicits  by 
shrewd  cross-examination  the  essential  facts  in  the  case,  and 
passes  to  the  next  complaint. 

In  the  next  office  Marimpietri  carries  on  the  work  as  head  .\  ,  ,> 
of  the  price-making  department.  Long  in  the  industry,  a 
veteran  of  all  the  battles  which  the  clothing  workers  have 
fought  in  Chicago  since  1910,  Marimpietri  carries  at  his 
finger  tips  a  knowledge  of  the  processes  in  the  industry, 
systems  of  wage  payments,  the  relation  between  piece  rates 
and  the  character  of  the  work  that  is  probably  unequalled 
anywhere  in  the  industry.  To  him  are  brought  for  adjust- 
ment the  innumerable  disputes  over  the  fixing  of  new  piece 
rates.  Work  changes,  new  shops  are  opened,  new  processes 
are  introduced,  styles  change,  processes  are  sub-divided ;  each 
change,  small  or  large,  raises  problems  of  rate  adjustment 
that  require  technical  and  expert  knowledge  of  rate  fixing. 
In  cases  that  are  finally  brought  to  the  Trade  Board  for 
settlement,  frequently  the  testimony  of  Marimpietri  alone  is 
sufficient  assurance  to  the  chairman  of  the  fairness  of  rate. 

An  organization  as  large  as  the  Chicago  Joint  Board  has 
from  time  to  time  its  special  problems  which  must  be  met 
promptly  and  effectively.  To  perform  its  function  in  the 
system  of  collective  bargaining  now  prevailing  in  the  in- 
dustry, the  union  must  participate  with  the  employers  and 
the  arbitration  machinery  in  the  administration  of  policies 
agreed  upon  in  negotiations  or  ordered  by  the  impartial 


^ 


y 


\^j 


^' 


8         CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

machinery.  Thus  the  arbitration  award  of  April,  1921,  con- 
tained, among  other  things,  a  provision  for  the  estabhshment 
of  standards  of  production  for  cutters  and  trimmers.  The 
L  administration  of  this  decision  depended  upon  an  examina- 
pT^  tion  of  present  production,  a  knowledge  of  differences  in 
shop  conditions,  and  possession  of  the  confidence  of  the 
workers  whose  standards  were  to  be  fixed.  This  task  was 
assigned  to  Rissman.  Formerly  a  cutter,  now  deputy-at- 
large  and  assistant  manager  of  the  Joint  Board,  for  a  long 
time  the  representative  of  the  cutters,  Rissman  for  almost 
a  year,  in  cooperation  with  a  representative  of  the  employers 
and  with  Professor  Millis,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration, was  engaged  in  this  task  of  setting  standards.  With 
this  done  he  turns  to  the  fixing  of  trimming  standards. 

Thus  there  has  in  a  short  period  developed  this  division  of 
labor,  which  brings  to  the  work  of  the  union  experience  and 
intelligence.  But  the  activity  of  the  Joint  Board  does  not 
stop  even  here.  The  staff  of  the  Board  is  composed,  of 
course,  of  diverse  individuals,  who  react  variously  to  the 
same  situation.  The  organization  must  have  a  policy,  how- 
ever elastic  it  may  be.  On  Saturday  mornings,  for  example, 
all  of  the  deputies  meet  in  joint  conference.  Some  have  en- 
countered puzzling  cases  in  the  course  of  their  week's  work. 
They  wonder  whether  their  experience  is  new  or  old.  Is  it 
wise  or  not  for  the  organization  to  adopt  one  of  a  number 
of  alternative  policies  in  the  settlement  of  a  particular  issue? 
What  is  the  temper  of  the  people  with  regard  to  a  proposed 
or  adopted  policy  of  the  union?  Questions  such  as  these 
are  here  reviewed  in  weekly  discussion.  Out  of  it  comes 
gradually  a  policy,  an  understanding  of  the  many-sidedness 
of  what  seems  at  first  a  simple  point,  and  the  development 
of  a  group  spirit. 

Frequently,  also,  an  impending  crisis  or  the  making  effec- 
tive a  new  policy  of  the  union  makes  it  necessary  to  reach 
promptly  the  whole  of  the  rank  and  file.  When  the  General 
Executive  Board  of  the  union  decided  to  raise  a  reserve  fund 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  clothing  industry,  the  first  step 
was  to  make  known  the  proposal  to  the  rank  and  file.    A 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD  9 

similar  situation  was  presented  with  the  decision  to  raise  a 
fund  for  the  relief  of  the  victims  of  the  Russian  famine. 
In  Chicago  this  contact  with  the  membership  is  made  through 
shop  meetings  conducted  throughout  the  city.  Shop  chair- 
men are  called  into  a  general  meeting,  where  they  have  an 
opportunity  to  discuss  the  proposals.  The  office  of  the  Joint 
Board  prepares  a  schedule  of  shop  meetings.  Convenient 
halls  are  rented.  Organizers  of  different  nationality,  chosen 
for  their  relations  with  the  groups  whom  they  are  to  address, 
are  called  in  from  the  field  and  are  assigned  to  their  shop 
meetings.  Then  the  machinery  is  put  into  operation  and  the  jAy 
shop  meetings  are  held.  At  these  meetings  every  possible  ^y^/0^^ 
type  of  subject  is  considered,  from  the  history  of  the  Amal-  ' 
gamated  to  the  specific  proposal  then  under  discussion.  An 
idea  of  the  extent  of  these  meetings  can  be  got  from  the  fact 
that  in  the  year  from  February,  1921,  to  January  14,  1922, 
2,104  such  meetings  were  held  throughout  the  city — 886  in 
the  down-town  and  outlying  districts,  814  in  the  northwest 
side,  and  404  in  the  southwest. 

An  activity  of  the  union,  which  has  in  the  past  two  years 
assumed  great  importance,  grows  directly  out  of  the  terms 
of  the  agreements  between  the  union,  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  and  the  other  clothing  manufacturers  of  Chicago. 
Under  these  terms  the  manufacturers  are  given  the  right  to 
employ  non-union  workers,  provided  that  no  qualified  union  y 
workers  are  then  available  for  the  work.  The  manufac-  ^  V 
turers,  therefore,  apply  to  the  union  for  workers  before  they 
attempt  to  engage  any  in  the  open  market  and  the  union  has 
come  to  conduct  a  registration  office  of  its  unemployed  mem- 
bers. To  this  ofiSce  unemployed  come  and  register;  give 
what  particulars  about  their  occupations  are  necessary;  and 
await  a  call  to  the  next  job.  In  the  years  of  depression  like 
1921  and  1922,  the  ante-room  in  the  union  headquarters  is 
almost  daily  filled  with  such  applicants  seeking  employment. 
From  October  5,  1920,  to  the  end  of  1921,  44,384  "  O.  K.'s  " 
were  issued  to  unemployed  members  at  the  three  employ- 
ment offices  now  conducted  by  the  union. 

Not  all  of  the  energies  of  the  union,  however,  are  ex- 


10       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

pended  in  purely  industrial  and  political  affairs.  Union 
business  is  necessarily  absorbing;  the  problems  of  the  in- 
dustry must  be  attended;  but  at  the  same  time  attention 
should  not  be  diverted  from  the  possibilities  for  cultural 
development  that  inhere  in  a  group  continuously  engaged  in 
a  common  enterprise.  These  40,000  to  50,000  members  of 
the  union,  of  some  twenty  different  nationalities;  varied  in 
outlook  and  training;  some  in  the  country  a  few  months, 
others  born  here ;  some  members  of  trade  unions  for  20  years, 
others  inducted  within  the  last  month  or  week ;  to  this  motley 
group  must  be  given  cohesion  and  unity,  outside  of  the  shop 
and  industry  as  well  as  within.  It  is  in  general  to  accom- 
plish this  end  that  the  union  pursues  its  educational  activ- 
ities. Education  becomes  more  than  mere  instruction ;  it  is  the 
great  social  activity  of  the  union.  The  school  room  of  the 
educational  department  of  the  Chicago  Joint  Board  is  not 
a  small  hall  where  a  few  ardent  students  of  Marx  straggle  in 
and  out  a  night  or  two  a  week.  It  is  a  great,  bright  enter- 
tainment on  Friday  night;  a  meeting  of  more  than  5,000 
persons  at  Carmen's  Hall,  where  men  bring  their  families, 
stand  in  line  from  late  afternoon  and  stay  until  near  mid- 
night to  hear  members  of  the  Chicago  Symphony  Orchestra, 
famous  singers,  pianists,  and  violinists,  and  to  listen  to  talks 
by  such  men  as  Lincoln  Steffens,  Raymond  Robins,  Frank 
P.  Walsh,  Hillman  and  others.  These  gigantic  meetings, 
started  for  the  first  time  in  1919,  have  now  become  an  insti- 
tution in  the  lives  of  the  Chicago  clothing  workers.  They 
could  no  more  be  abolished  than  could  the  union  itself.  Each 
year  a  larger  number  of  these  types  of  meetings  are  held. 
In  1920  the  appropriation  for  them  was  $5,400  and  in  1921 
this  sum  was  raised  to  $12,000. 

While  these  large  meetings  constitute  the  center  of  the 
educational  activities  of  the  union,  classes  for  the  instruction 
of  small  groups  have  also  on  occasion  been  provided.  It  is 
the  purpose  of  the  Joint  Board  to  facilitate  reading  and 
study  by  the  building  of  a  library  which  has  already  been 
established  in  the  central  offices  of  the  Board  on  Halsted 
Street.     But  the  educational  foundations  of  the  union  are 


Executive  Offices,  Chicago  Joint  Board — Samuel  Levin,  ^Manager;  A.  1). 
Marimpietri,  in  Charge,  Price  Fixing;  Frank  Roscnblum,  Directing 
Organization  Work 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD  11 

still  the  daily  contact  in  the  shops,  local  unions,  and  at  the 
Joint  Board  between  the  workers,  the  union  and  the  in- 
dustry, and  the  Friday  night  meetings.  Up  to  the  present 
the  members  of  the  Chicago  Joint  Board  have  learned  most 
by  active  participation  in  the  business  of  running  their  union  . 

and  of  conducting  their  affairs  in  shop  and  factory.  v^ 


^y 


The  Chicago  Joint  Board  of  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  A  \\^  Ly' 
Workers  has  not  played  its  part  in  the  clothing  industry  of  Ify  Jl 
Chicago  alone.  From  the  time  when,  in  1010,  it  first  re-  ^{i 
jected  the  leaders  of  the  United  Garment  Workers,  through 
the  fight  at  Nashville  in  1914,  until  the  present,  it  has  been 
a  powerful  force  in  more  ways  than  one  in  building  a  strong 
national  organization  of  clothing  workers.  \Vhen  the  break 
came  at  Nashville,  the  Chicago  delegates,  the  memory  of 
1910  still  vivid  in  their  minds,  joined  with  the  delegates 
from  New  York  and  elsewhere  in  the  fight  to  discredit  and 
reject  Rickert  and  his  associates.  Later  when  the  Amal- 
gamated Clothing  Workers  was  organized,  Chicago  men 
and  women  became  leaders  of  the  new  organization.  Prob- 
ably never  before  in  the  history  of  a  labor  organization  were 
so  many  leaders  drawn  from  so  narrow  a  circle.  Sidney 
Hillman,  president  of  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers, 
was  an  apprentice  cutter  in  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  and 
a  striker  in  the  strike  of  1910.  Potofsky,  now  assistant  gen- 
eral secretary-treasurer  of  the  national  union.  Levin, 
Marimpietri,  Rosenblum,  Skala,  Rissman,  members  of  the 
General  Executive  Board  of  the  national  imion,  are  all 
from  Chicago  and  helped  in  the  rise  of  both  the  Chicago 
Joint  Board  and  of  the  national  organization. 

This  contribution  of  leadership  did  not  end  the  service 
of  the  Chicago  union.  From  the  first  the  spirit  of  Chicago 
has  been  of  incalculable  service  when  the  fight  was  on  in 
other  centers  and  the  outlook  seemed  dark.  They,  them- 
selves, worn  by  long  struggles  with  the  clothing  manufac- 
turers, yet  never  forgot  the  importance  of  an  active  national 
organization.  When  the  time  came,  and  the  national  union 
was  being  attacked,  Chicago  went  a  long  way  toward  sup- 


12       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

plying  the  sinews  of  war.     In  the  New  York  lockout  of 
1918-1919,  the  Chicago  members  took  the  back  pay  granted 


4^ 


f 


'  ff>  them   in    Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  to    the    amount    of 

r^     y^'  $60,000  and  sent  it  to  their  fellows  in  New  York  who  were 

t  *^f^V^'      "°*  working.    Again  in  the  great  New  York  fight  of  1920- 

\}  1921,  when  the  cost  of  conducting  strikes  had  mounted  and 


A  '  the  union  was  hard  pressed  in  Baltimore  and  Boston  as 

^  well,  Chicago,  in  the  midst  of  a  period  of  widespread  unem- 

ployment, raised  $600,000  and  sent  the  money  to  the  aid 
of  New  York.  Toward  peaceful  enterprises  the  Chicago 
Joint  Board  has  been  equally  generous.  Only  recently,  a 
short  period  after  the  New  York  assessment,  it  raised  and 
contributed  $62,000  to  the  relief  of  the  Russian  famine 
victims. 

From  Chicago,  also,  go  the  representatives  of  the  national 
office  to  organize  the  clothing  workers  in  the  surrounding 
cities.  Organization  activities  in  Indianapohs,  Cincinnati, 
Louisville,  St;  Paul,  Milwaukee,  are  all  carried  on  from 
Chicago  as  a  center.  Frank  Rosenblum,  a  general  organizer 
of  the  national  office,  an  active  member  of  the  Chicago  union 
since  before  the  strike  of  1910,  skilled  in  the  art  of  organiza- 
tion, directs  from  Chicago  this  work  of  organization  in  the 
outlying  districts.  To  his  aid  he  enlists  such  men  and 
women  as  Isowitz,  Kroll,  Skala,  Rissman,  Krzycki,  Johann- 
sen,  Grandinetti,  Nettie  Richardson,  seasoned  organizers, 
trained  in  the  Chicago  struggles,  to  carry  the  spirit  and 
achievements  of  Chicago  to  men  and  women  who  are  still 
batthng  for  emancipation. 

In  common  with  the  policy  of  the  national  organization, 
the  Chicago  Joint  Board  has  from  the  first  established 
friendly  connections  with  the  rest  of  the  American  labor 
>^  movement.  Although  an  independent  union,  in  that  it  i^ 
not  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  it 
has  not  hesitated  to  do  all  in  its  power  to  cement  its  relations 
with  other  labor  organizations.  In  the  city  of  Chicago  and 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  it  has  both  received  and  given  sup- 
port from  1910  on.  Between  such  men  as  Fitzpatrick  and 
Nockels  and  the  Chicago  union  there  has  always  existed 


THE  CHICAGO  JOINT  BOARD  13 

mutual  sympathy  and  cooperation.  The  story  of  the  great 
Chicago  clothing  strikes  cannot  be  written  without  tribute 
to  the  services  of  these  men  in  the  cause  of  the  strikers.  As 
the  Chicago  Joint  Board  itself  grew  in  power  and  resources 
it  was  able  to  lend  aid  to  those  who  needed  it.  To  the  steel 
strikers  of  1919  it  gave  $72,000.  But  its  real  contribution 
to  the  general  labor  movement  lies  deeper.  The  Chicago 
Joint  Board  for  ten  years  has  been  a  vast,  experimental 
laboratory  in  American  trade  unionism.  In  it  experiments 
in  internal  government  and  in  industrial  relations  have  been 
prosecuted  and  have  yielded  illuminating  results.  No 
greater  service  can  be  asked  of  a  pioneer  organization  than 
that  it  has  blazed  a  trail  upon  which  others  may  follow. 

This  history  of  the  organization  of  Chicago  clothing 
workers  leaves  it  not  at  the  end  but  at  the  beginning  of  its 
career.    Much  has  been  accomplished  in  the  short  space  of  K 

ten  years.     But  always  the  clothing  workers  look  for  new  ^h  ^ 

fields  to  conquer  and  for  new  burdens  to  assume.  Plans 
for  the  construction  of  a  new  home  on  the  site  shown  as  the  &l^ 
frontispiece  to  this  volume  and  of  a  building  on  the  north- 
west side  are  now  under  way.  Their  completion  makes 
possible  new  undertakings  which  the  inadequacy  of  the  ^  ,:^*^  h 
present  offices  of  the  union  has  forced  to  be  postponed.  p  .  .^'  ] 
Within  only  the  past  few  months  the  preliminary  steps  were 
taken  for  the  organization  of  a  cooperative  bank  financed 
and  organized  by  the  members  of  the  union.  The  present 
crisis  of  unemployment  has  led  to  the  establishment  of  a  loan 
fund  for  the  support  of  the  indigent  unemployed.  The 
educational  activities  of  the  union  are  expanding.  New 
problems  of  the  industry  will  arise  and  old  ones  will  assume 
a  new  and  unfamiliar  form.  May  the  future  of  this  organiza- 
tion retain  the  vigor  and  insight  that  have  characterized  its 
past. 


jrr" 


/■  «■ 

r 


vA 


.H' 


PART  I 
THE  GROWTH  OF  ORGANIZATION 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  STRIKE  OF  1910 

The  Chicago  Garment  Strike  of  1910  was  the  first  great 
landmark  in  the  long  struggle  of  the  clothing  workers  for 
emancipation.  Because  it  was  felt  to  be  the  beginning  of  a 
great  movement,  and  because  of  the  importance  of  the  issues 
and  the  proportions  that  the  strike  reached,  there  has  col- 
lected about  the  story  of  this  fight  a  mass  of  memories  and 
traditions,  and  about  the  figures  of  those  who  were  in  the 
thick  of  it  and  who  devoted  themselves  heart  and  soul  to  the 
cause  of  the  workers,  an  almost  historical  glamor.  It  was 
a  struggle  to  excite  the  keenest  interest  not  only  of  the  world 
of  labor,  but  of  all  public-minded  citizens.  No  one  could 
be  non-partisan  in  such  a  fight,  and  no  one  was. 

The  feature  of  the  strike  was  the  entirely  unorganized  con- 
dition of  the  strikers  and  the  spontaneity  and  determination 
of  their  protest  in  spite  of  that  fact.  It  has  been  described 
by  Mr.  Dvorak,  the  author  of  the  famous  strike  articles  in 
the  Chicago  Daily  Socialist,  as  a  "  simultaneous  upheaval 
of  over  forty-one  thousand  garment  workers,  brought  on  by 
sixteen  girls,  against  petty  persecution,  low  wages,  abuse 
and  long  hours ;  an  upheaval  unorganized  at  the  start,  which 
later  took  on  the  form  of  a  fight  for  recognition  of  the 
union."  The  strike  did  not  grow  out  of  a  premediated 
attempt  to  organize  the  workers — it  rose  directly  from  the 
industrial  conditions  of  the  workers  in  Chicago.  "  There 
really  were  no  definite  demands ;  the  demands  were  that  con- 
ditions must  be  changed;  nobody  knew  exactly  what  they 
wanted;  they  wanted  something  better,  of  course,  or 
different." 

These  conditions  were  the  inevitable  result  of  the  nature 
and  organization  of  the  industry  itself,  coupled  with  the  un- 


18        CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

organized  and  defenceless  position  of  the  workers.  A  glance 
at  the  history  of  the  competitive  struggle  between  the  Chi- 
rago  Wholesale  Clothiers'  Association  (an  organization  of 

'^      big  concerns  formed  in  defence  against  the  new  small  tailor 
shops)  and  the  one  big  firm  that  refused  to  enter  the  Asso- 

-vA  ciation — Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx — is  enough  to  show  how 

JK  ^the  independent  tailors,  and  later  the  contractors,  were  all 
caught  in  the  same  system.  Gradually,  under  the  competition 
of  more  powerful  firms  the  smaller  inside  shops  were  driven 
out  of  independent  business.  Many  of  them  turned  their 
inside  shops  into  contract  shops  and  began  to  work  for  these 
big  firms  on  a  contract  basis.  The  contractors  thus  found 
themselves  caught  between  the  upper  and  nether  millstones 
of  the  association  firms  and  their  rival.  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx.  They  became  mere  pawns  in  the  fight  for  supremacy. 
The  first  important  move  in  this  struggle  came  in  response 
to  a  tactical  increase  in  contractors'  prices  granted  by  the 
association  houses,  when  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  sud- 
denly withdrew  all  work  from  Itheir  Contract  shops  and 
I  ^  opened  in  their  place  inside  shops  employing  over  eight 

\jr    thousand  tailors.     This  step  was  the  signal  for  a  drive  on 
J^        the  part  of  both  competitors  to  reduce  their  labor  costs.    The 
jjr  AP"     contract  system  lent  itself  easily  to  reductions  in  rates,  for 
V  tnT     ^  *^^  contractors  would  pass  the  price  reductions  demanded 

by  the  manufacturers  on  to  the  workers  by  lowering  their 
rates.  At  the  same  time  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  would 
try  to  preserve  its  competitive  position  by  cutting  the  wages 
of  its  workers.  This  whole  process  was,  also,  made  easy  by 
the  prevalence  of  piece  work  in  an  unorganized  market. 
Without  protection  of  their  piece  rates,  the  workers  would 
be  speeded  up  and  then,  when  their  earnings  increased,  would 
have  their  piece  rates  cut.  A  seasonal  industry,  unorganized 
workers,  contractors,  produced  their  natural  and  inevitable 
consequences — ^low  earnings,  excessive  hours,  and  a  helpless- 
ness, which  could  be  relieved  only  by  a  powerful  and  con- 
tinuous organization  of  those  who  worked  in  the  industry. 

The  helplessness  of  the  workers  not  only  made  it  impos- 
sible for  them  to  resist  these  conditions  but  was  itself  aggra- 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  19 

vated  and  intensified  by  them,  so  that  the  workers  were  caught 
in  a  vicious  circle.  In  the  first  place,  the  garment  workers 
were  almost  without  exception  recently  arrived  immigrants, 
unable  to  speak  Enghsh,  and  ignorant  of  customs  and  con- 
ditions of  other  American  industries.  The  racial  and  linguistic 
differences  among  the  workers  themselves  made  common 
understanding  and  action  extremely  difficult.  An  article 
describing  the  beginning  of  the  strike  in  the  official  organ 
of  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League,  says  that  the  re- 
bellious groups  were  not  even  known  to  each  other.  "  They 
poured  out  of  the  shops,  threw  down  their  needles,  and  in 
nine  different  languages  demanded  a  better  condition  of  af- 
fairs in  the  industrj'^  of  garment  making  in  Chicago."  That 
the  ignorance  of  language  and  customs  and  the  "  green- 
ness "  of  the  immigrant  workers  were  taken  advantage  of,  is 
proved  again  and  again  by  stories  that  were  told  in  the  course 
of  the  investigation  of  the  strike.  The  following  story  was 
told  by  a  young  Italian  girl : 

"  There  were  about  ten  greenhorns  who  could  not  talk  Eng- 
lish at  all.  I  can't  speak  English  very  good,  but  I  speak  more 
than  what  they  could.  So  in  the  evening  I  went  to  the  boss  and 
I  said:  '  Do  you  like  my  work.'' '  He  said,  '  Yes,  I  hke  your 
work  very  well.'  I  said :  '  How  much  are  you  going  to  pay 
me?  '  He  said  '  What  can  you  do.?  '  '  Well,'  I  said,  '  I  told 
you,  basting,  finisher,  buttons,  all  kinds  of  work.'     So  he  said,  j 

*  Well  I  would  like  to  have  you  be  the  forelady  to  teach  these 
greenhorns  how  to  work  because  these  are  greenhorns  and  they 
can't  work  very  well.     You  just  be  forelady  and  tell  them  to 
work  more  and  make  me  good  work.'     So  I  said  '  Well,  all  right, 
but  don't  you  like  the  work  they  do.** '     He  said,  '  No,  they      ,      v  v 
can't  work  for  me  now  but  you  must  try  and  learn  them.'     So    <    '           ^*^  \ 
I   said  to  him  '  If  you  think  they  can't  do  the  work  I  have  some     "^          v*' >^ 
good,  experienced  girls  that  could  do  the  work  right,  and  I  will           j  • 
bring  them  over  in  the  morning.'     So  he  laughed — he  stopped      ,  t^ 

and  laughed.     He  said,  '  Experienced  girls.'*     Not  in  my  shop ! '    ' 

*  Why  not?'  He  said,  *I  want  no  experienced  girls.  They 
know  the  pay  to  get.  I  got  to  pay  them  good  wages  and  they 
make  me  less  work,  but  these  greenhorns,  Italian  people,  Jewish 
people,  all  nationalities,  they  cannot  speak  English  and  they 
don't  know  where  to  go  and  they  just  come  from  the  old  coun- 
try, and  I  let  them  work  hard,  like  the  devil,  and  those  I  get  for 
less  wages." 


J  i 


20       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Most  of  the  workers  had  learned  their  trade  in  their  own 
countries,  but  that  served  only  to  make  them  the  more  de- 
pendent on  the  only  trade  in  which  they  were  skilled.  At  the 
same  time  the  seasonal  nature  of  the  industry  and  the  fact 
that  the  industry  was  always  over-supplied  with  labor  kept 
the  workers  in  constant  fear  of  losing  their  jobs,  and  this  fear 
made  them  powerless  to  complain  or  resist.  The  answer  was 
always  the  same:  "  If  you  don't  like  it,  you  can  leave." 
"  We  don't  need  you."  "  There  are  plenty  to  take  your 
place."  One  of  the  girls  told  of  her  own  experience,  which 
was  typical  of  many  others.  She  had  protested  against  a 
further  wage  cut  in  a  shop  of  which  she  was  forelady.  The 
boss  said,  "If  they  cannot  make  it,  here  is  the  window  and 
here  is  the  door.  If  they  don't  want  to  go  from  the  window 
they  can  go  from  the  door,  and  if  they  don't  want  to  go 
from  the  door,  they  can  go  from  the  window.  *  *  *  I  have 
lots  of  greenhorns.    I  got  to  make  my  own  living." 

It  is  all  the  more  astonishing,  in  view  of  the  workers'  lack 
of  organization  and  their  fear  of  losing  their  jobs,  that  the 
strike  grew  to  be  more  serious  than  any  of  the  frequent 
sporadic  flare-ups  that  had  been  so  prevalent  in  the  industry, 
and  thus  far  so  futile.  It  would  have  to  be  a  serious  and 
almost  unbearable  accumulation  of  grievances  that  would 
induce  the  workers  to  run  that  risk  sooner  than  continue  un- 
der the  old  sweat-shop  conditions.  A  Grievance  Committee 
appointed  by  the  Strike  Committee  of  the  Women's  Trade 
Union  League,  after  the  strike  began,  published  a  report 
of  its  findings  and  accounts  of  grievances  told  by  girl 
strikers.  These  stories  and  the  evidence  submitted  later  to 
the  Illinois  State  Senate  Investigation  Committee  give  some 
idea  of  how  serious  these  grievances  were. 

By  means  of  the  piece  work  system  and  reduction  of  rates, 
the  workers  were  driven  to  an  ever-increasing  speed,  that  was 
injurious  to  their  health  not  only  on  its  own  accoimt,  but  also 
because  the  long  hours  and  the  ill-ventilated  and  ill-lighted 
shops  added  to  the  nervous  strain  of  speeding.  This  state- 
ment by  Hillman  is  typical: 


Sidney  Hillman,  General  President 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  21 

"  In  our  place  (Sears,  Roebuck)  we  were  working  about  seven 
thousand  girls — in  our  place  ten  hours  a  day,  and  before  the  ten 
hour  law  was  passed  they  used  to  work  three  nights  a  week, 
getting  for  remuneration  a  supper  that  was  paid  for  by  the 
Company  in  their  own  restaurant." 

The  fastest  workers  would  be  made  "  pacemakers  "  and 
their  rates  would  be  increased  until  they  had  reached  the 
highest  possible  production.  This  production  would  then 
be  required  of  all  the  workers  and  the  rates  gradually  re- 
duced. Changes  in  operations  or  the  combination  of  what 
had  been  two  or  more  operations  into  one,  or  other  changes 
that  made  the  work  more  difficult  would  be  required  without 
any  compensating  changes  being  made  in  the  piece  rates,  so 
that  the  actual  earnings  of  the  workers  were  decreased.  An- 
nie Schapiro  gives  the  following  testimony  for  her  own  shop: 

"  When  they  (the  workers)  were  first  cut  a  quarter  of  a  cent 
in  shop  5,  the  firm  promised  the  workers  they  would  not  have  to 
sew  the  waist  bands  in  the  pants.  But  later  the  boss  said 
*  Boys,  I  want  you  to  sew  the  bands  for  the  same  money.'  We 
kept  quiet  because  we  could  not  help  it." 

The  rates  to  begin  with  were  in  most  cases  so  low  as  to 
make  it  impossible  for  the  workers  to  earn  a  living  without 
taking  work  home.  Needle  workers  would  take  packages 
of  needles  home  with  them  to  thread  at  night,  so  as  to  be  able 
to  get  more  work  done  in  the  shops.  Women  earning  from 
three  dollars  to  six  dollars  a  week  on  piece  work  rates  would 
take  work  away  with  them  to  do  at  night,  despite  the  long 
working  day.  One  story  told  to  the  Grievance  Committee 
shows  that  the  women  in  one  shop  had  to  finish  ten  coats  a 
day,  and  each  coat  required  at  least  an  hour  and  a  half,  even 
for  an  experienced  worker.  The  rates  for  these  were  thir- 
teen cents  a  coat,  which  meant  that  if  they  worked  ten  hours 
steadily,  at  the  greatest  possible  speed,  they  could  make 
eighty-five  cents  a  day.  Later  the  boss  of  this  shop  was  cut 
by  the  contractor  he  was  working  for  and  he  told  the  girl 
that  the  women  in  her  shop  have  to  do  the  work  for  twelve 
cents  a  coat.  Her  own  story,  which  follows,  shows  how  the 
workers  were  finally  goaded  into  striking: 


22       CLOTHIXG  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

"  I  said,  *  I  am  not  going  to  tell  those  people  twelve  cents  a 
coat.'  He  said,  '  You  got  to  tell  them.'  I  said,  '  No,  sir,  you 
tell  them  yourself.  I  am  just  ashamed  to  tell  them '.  .  .  .  He 
said,  '  You  are  forelady,  you  are  supposed  to  do  the  speaking.' 
I  said,  '  Well,  if  I  am  supposed  to  do  the  speaking,  then  I  will 
not  be  the  forelady,  I  want  to  be  a  working  girl,  the  same  as 
the  others,  and  then  I  don't  speak." 

"  I  knew  they  were  striking  in  all  the  shops,  so  I  told  all  our 
girls,  I  said, '  The  first  whistle  we  hear  in  the  window,  that  means 
for  us  to  strike.'  So  one  day,  it  was  dinner  time,  quarter  after 
twelve  and  we  hear  a  big  noise  under  the  window  and  there  was 
about  two  hundred  persons  were  all  whistling  for  us  to  come 
down  and  strike,  so  I  was  the  first  one  to  go  out  and  get  the 
other  girls  to  come  after  me." 

Other  workers  told  similar  stories: 

"  We  started  to  work  at  7.30  and  worked  until  6  with  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour  for  lunch.  Our  wages  were  seven  cents  a 
pair  of  pants  or  one  dollar  for  fourteen  pairs  and  for  that  we 
made  four  pockets  and  one  watch  pocket.  But  they  were 
always  changing  the  style  of  stitching,  and  till  we  got  the 
swing  of  the  new  style,  we  would  lose  time  and  money  and  we 
felt  sore  about  it.  Some  of  the  new  styles  took  more  time, 
anyway.  One  day  the  foreman  told  us  the  wages  were  cut  to 
six  cents  a  pair  of  pants  and  the  new  style  had  two  watch 
pockets  and  we  didn't  stand  for  that,  so  we  got  up  and  left  after 
Mr.  Wolf  told  us  if  we  didn't  like  the  prices,  we  could  quit. 

"  That  was  way  back  in  September.  We  walked  over  to 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  to  see  if  we  could  get  work  there,  and 
we  found  they  had  a  strike.  We  knew  nothing  of  it,  but  of 
course  we  wouldn't  scab.  After  a  week  or  so,  we  went  back 
to  the  old  shop  and  found  others  in  our  place.  Then  the  great 
strike  came — not  just  the  separate  little  strikes,  but  one  whole 
strike.  When  the  foreman  heard  us  all  talking  about  it,  he 
said,  *  Girls,  you  can  have  your  pockets  and  your  cent  again  if 
you'll  stay.'  But  just  then  there  was  a  big  noise  outside  and 
we  all  rushed  to  the  windows  and  there  we  saw  the  police  beating 
the  strikers  on  our  account,  and  when  we  saw  that  we  went  out." 

Another  worker  testified  that  she  worked  in  one  shop  for 
three  years  at  four  dollars,  five  dollars,  and  later  seven  dol- 
lars a  week.  Later  when  she  was  put  on  piece  work,  she 
could  earn  more  but  it  was  harder  work  and  the  highest 
earnings  she  ever  made  were  twelve  dollars. 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  23 

But  the  reductions  in  rates  and  wages  were  not  the  only  \br^ 

grievances  of  the  workers.    Again  and  again  there  are  com-         /  ^ 
plaints  about  the  abuse  of  the  absolute  and  arbitrary  power       i^*    \ 
vested  in  the  foreman  or  even  the  assistant  foreman.    It  was   JJ^^^' 
this  power  as  much  if  not  more  than  the  seasonal  periods  of 
unemployment  that  instilled  in  the  workers  the  constant  fear 
of  being  fired,  and  kept  them  from  making  complaints. 

"  I  especially  recall  the  feeling  of  fear  besides  the  wages," 
testified  Hillman  before  the  Federal  Industrial  Relations  Com- 
mission in  1914,  "  I  believe  I  started  in  with  $7  a  week,  and  dur- 
ing 3  years  I  worked  up  to  $11  or  $12 ;  but  what  I  consider  more 
important  is  this,  that  is  the  constant  fear  of  the  employees  of 
being  discharged  without  cause  at  all.  There  really  was  no  cause 
at  all  sometimes.  The  floor  boss,  as  we  called  him,  did  not  like  a 
particular  girl  or  man,  and  out  they  went.  I  remember  especial- 
ly the  panic  of  1907  when  the  employees  were  in  constant  fear  of 
*  Who  will  be  thrown  out?'  I  remember  we  tried,  all  of  us,  to  get 
into  the  good  graces  of  the  floor  boss.  When  I  worked  for  Hart, 
Schaff'ner  and  Marx  I  worked  two  months  without  pay,  as  it  was 
understood  that  I  had  savings  enough  to  live  if  I  did  not  get  any 
other  remuneration.  I  believe  for  about  a  couple  of  months  I 
worked  for  .$6  or  $7  a  week.  The  conditions  prevailing  were 
about  the  same  everywhere,  the  man  directly  in  charge  was  the 
boss  and  everything  else.  I  remember  when  I  made  the  first 
complaint  I  packed  up  my  tools  and  I  went  out." 

One  girl  testified  that  she  began  work  at  the  age  of  12. 
She  was  small  enough  to  be  covered  by  the  boss'  coat  when 
the  factory  inspector  came  around!  "  One  day  the  foreman 
came  to  me  and  told  me  I  could  be  assistant  foreman  and 
that  he  would  give  me  $8  a  week  to  start  and  then  make  it 
$10.  But  then  suddenly  all  the  men  seemed  to  be  getting 
ugly  to  me,  and  I  didn't  know  why,  but  I  know  now.  The 
assistant  foreman  who  was  there  before  me  was  a  man  and 
he  got  $22,  and  then  you  see  they  thought  I  knew  just  about 
as  much,  and  they  offered  me  the  job  and  they  only  gave  me 
$10,  and  I  didn't  know  I  was  working  for  less  than  the  man; 
so  all  the  other  men  hated  me  and  tried  to  take  it  out  on  me. 
Afterwards  I  learned  that  the  manager  didn't  know  about  it 
either,  but  that  the  foreman  was  just  doing  this  on  his  own 
account.*' 


24       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

If  a  worker  was  too  good  to  lose,  but  yet  showed  a  tendency 
to  rebellion  and  toward  arousing  the  discontent  of  the  others, 
he  or  she  would  generally  be  made  foreman  or  forelady. 
Bonuses  would  be  given  to  foremen  or  foreladies  for  increas- 
ing the  productivity  of  their  shop,  while  if  they  did  not  get 
better  results  they  would  lose  their  jobs.  Thus  the  foremen 
and  assistant  foremen  were  given  every  incentive,  including 
that  of  fear,  toward  driving  the  workers,  though  no  changes 
were  made  in  the  earnings  of  the  workers  themselves  for  in- 
creased production.  This  system  naturally  led  to  all  kinds 
of  abuse  and  petty  tyranny  on  the  part  of  the  foremen  and 
foreladies,  from  whose  actions  there  was  no  appeal.  In  one 
shop,  for  example,  the  foreman  had  the  water  turned  off  be- 
fore and  after  the  dinner  hour,  so  that  the  workers  could 
have  no  reason  to  take  off  time  from  their  work.  Many  other 
disputes  arose  in  connection  with  the  saving  of  time.  After 
the  passage  of  the  10-hour  law,  for  instance,  foremen  in 
several  shops  managed  to  evade  the  law  by  requiring  the 
workers  to  work  before  and  after  punching  the  time  clock, 
and  the  workers  did  not  dare  complain. 

The  obnoxious  system  of  fines  was  another  weapon  in  the 
hands  of  the  foremen,  and  one  of  the  most  irritating.  In 
many  instances  failure  to  punch  the  time  clock  three  times 
daily  was  fined,  and  in  some  shops  punching  it  one  minute 
late  was  fined  the  equivalent  of  15  minutes  of  working  time. 
Excessive  fines  were  imposed  for  the  slightest  errors  in 
work,  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  amount  of  loss  incurred 
by  the  employer.  If  any  garment  was  even  slightly  dam- 
aged, the  worker  had  to  pay  the  full  price  of  the  garment, 
and  he  might  be  compelled  to  purchase  it  at  the  retail  price. 
In  one  instance,  a  tailor  earning  $14  a  week  slightly  damaged 
three  pairs  of  pants  and  was  charged  $12  by  the  company. 
His  fellow-workers  being  unable  to  complain  raffled  off  the 
three  pairs  of  pants  to  compensate  him  for  the  loss.  The  Sen- 
ate Investigation  Committee  revealed  similar  conditions  in 
other  shops,  for  example: 

"  Senator  McKenzie :     In  taking  these  goods,  do  they  permit 
the  employe  to  take  them  at  cost? 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  25 

"  Witness :  No  Sir,  they  charge  their  regular  wholesale  price 
with  their  profits  attached  to  it. 

"  Senator  McKenzie :  They  make  him  pay  the  profits  you 
say? 

"  Witness :     Yes,  sir. 

"  Senator  McKenzie :     They  have  made  a  sale  in  other  words  ? 

"  Witness :     Yes,  Sir,  on  a  damaged  piece  of  goods." 

Many  workers  complained  that  they  were  forced  to  pay 
for  materials  that  they  used  up  or  lost  at  retail  rates.  "  A  fine 
of  60  cents  was  imposed  for  a  lost  spool  whether  empty  or 
full,  and  on  entering,  shop  workers  have  been  charged  25 
cents  for  oil  cans  procurable  wholesale  at  5  cents." 

The  effect  of  all  these  unremedied  grievances,  together 
with  the  lack  of  any  possible  means  for  adjusting  them, 
engendered  in  the  workers  a  state  of  chronic  unrest  and  dis- 
content, which  broke  out  in  nimierous  small  but  bitter  strikes. 
Mr.  Joseph  Schaffner  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  de- 
scribed the  situation  to  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission 
as  follows: 

*'  Careful  study  of  the  situation  has  led  me  to  the  belief  that 
the  fundamental  cause  of  the  strike  was  that  the  workers  had 
no  satisfactory  channel  through  which  minor  grievances,  exac- 
tions and  petty  tyrannies  of  underbosses  *  *  *  could  be 
taken  up  and  amicably  adjusted.  Taken  separately,  these 
grievances  appear  to  have  been  of  a  minor  character.  They 
were,  however,  allowed  to  accumulate  from  month  to  month  and 
from  year  to  year.  *  *  *  The  result  was  that  there  "steadily 
grew  up  in,  the  minds  of  many  a  feeling  of  distrust  and  enmity 
towards  their  immediate  superiors  in  position,  because  they  felt 
that  justice  was  being  denied  them.  If  they  had  had  the 
temerity  to  complain  against  a  boss,  they  incurred  his  displea- 
sure, and  his  word  was  taken  in  preference  to  theirs.  In  some 
instances  they  lost  their  jobs,  and  where  this  was  not  the  case 
they  seldom  received  any  satisfaction. 

"  Shortly  before  the  strike  I  was  so  badly  informed  of  the  con- 
ditions that  I  called  the  attention  of  a  friend  to  the  satisfactory 
state  of  the  employees.  It  was  only  a  few  days  before  the  great 
strike  of  the  Garment  Workers  broke  out.  When  I  found  out 
later  of  the  conditions  that  had  prevailed,  I  concluded  that  the 
strike  should  have  occurred  much  sooner." 


;AJ 


26       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

,  The  resentment  of  the  workers  had,  in  fact,  piled  up 

A  through  years  of  injustices  until  almost  anything  would  have 
served  to  start  the  blaze.  The  first  spark  was  struck  on 
September  22  in  Shop  No.  5,  a  pants  shop  of  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx,  when  several  girls  walked  out  of  the  shop  rather 
than  accept  a  cut  of  one-quarter  cent  in  rates.  Annie 
Schapiro,  one  of  the  first  to  go  out,  gives  the  following  ac- 
count of  what  happened : 

"  After  they  had  cut  the  rates  for  seaming  pants  ^4:^>  they 
gave  it  back  again,  then  cut  again,  and  we  went  out.  There 
was  a  man  (Morris)  who  said  '  No,  I  will  not  work  for  3%^.' 
We  were  told  to  come  back  Friday  at  twelve.  On  Friday  there 
was  the  whole  bunch  there  *  *  *  and  we  did  not  know  any- 
thing about  it,  and  he  (Morris)  would  not  leave  us  go  upstairs 
and  stopped  us  in  the  office.  He  said  '  What  are  you  going  to 
work  for?  That  is  only  3%^  now.  I  wouldn't  work  for  that 
*     *     *.     I  said  I  could  work  for  3%^. 

**  I  went  down  on  the  Monday  the  next  week  to  see  about  the 
seamers  and  they  did  not  come  back  to  work.  And  one  or  more 
fellows  went  down-town,  and  the  rest  of  them  left." 

The  workers  then  sent  a  committee  to  Hart,  SchaflPner  and 
Marx,  urging  them  to  restore  the  quarter-cent  cut,  but  the 
firm  refused  because  they  said  other  workers  were  quitting 
and  refusing  to  do  the  work  anyway. 

"  That  was  the  people  in  the  other  departments,  and  they 
saw  there  was  trouble  in  the  shops  *  *  *  so  at  shops  14  and 
15,  the  rest  of  the  seamers  did  not  want  to  do  our  work,  and 
so  it  was  on  Wednesday  they  picked  up  their  tools  that  they 
should  work  with,  and  they  did  not  want  to  do  that  work;  the 
people  went  on  strike.  *  *  *  The  foreman  threw  Morris 
out,  and  then  all  the  people  refused  to  work." 

Contrary  to  all  precedent,  the  walk-out  in  Shop  5  pro- 
voked immediate  and  enthusiastic  response  in  other  shops.  It 
seemed  as  if  the  workers  had  just  been  waiting  for  something 
or  someone  to  give  the  final  push.  The  news  spread  through 
the  clothing  shops  of  Chicago  with  amazing  rapidity.  By 
the  next  day  almost  a  thousand  men  and  women  had  left  the 
shops  and  long  before  three  weeks  were  over,  more  than 
40,000  were  out,  and  the  whole  city  was  affected.     Nothing 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  27 

like  it  had  ever  been  known  before  in  the  history  of  the  cloth- 
ing workers. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  strike  a  group  of  workers 
went  to  the  office  of  Robert  Noren,  President  of  District 
Council  No.  6  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  and  appealed 
for  help  and  support  in  the  strike.  Noren  wired  to  President 
Rickert  for  instructions,  and  was  authorized  by  him  to  call  a 
strike  of  the  garment  workers.  Here  if  ever  was  a  chance 
to  organize  the  Chicago  clothing  workers  on  a  scale  never 
before  dreamed  of,  but  at  the  crucial  moment,  the  officers  of 
the  United  Garment  Workers  for  some  reason  failed  to  take 
advantage  of  the  opportunity.  Even  after  the  strike  was 
well  under  way,  in  spite  of  the  growing  and  insistent  demand 
for  a  general  strike  in  all  the  clothing  shops,  and  in  spite  of 
the  proof  that  "  union  label  "  shops  were  doing  work  for 
strike-bound  houses,  the  United  Garment  Workers  hesitated 
to  call  a  general  strike  until  more  than  18,000  were  already 
out. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  Chicago  Daily  Socialist 
first  came  to  the  aid  of  the  strikers.  On  October  7th  a 
Special  Strike  Edition  of  the  Daily  Socialist  was  published, 
and  thereafter  a  series  of  articles  appeared,  giving  a  full  and 
detailed  history  of  the  progress  of  the  strike.  Mr.  Robert 
Dvorak,  the  author  of  these  articles,  practically  forced  the 
hand  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  District  Council  No. 
6  by  threatening  to  publish  a  call  for  a  general  strike  with- 
out waiting  longer  unless  the  union  did  it.  But  the  United 
Garment  Workers  did  call  the  strike,  and  within  one  week 
the  number  of  workers  out  on  strike  had  grown  to  45,000. 
"  This  great  exodus  was  brought  on  because  50,000  copies  of 
the  Daily  Socialist  containing  the  call  were  distributed  by 
the  strikers  throughout  the  city  and  in  front  of  the  unfair 
concerns'  doors." 

The  strike  grew  so  fast  that  District  Council  No.  6  was 
unable  to  handle  it,  and  in  a  few  weeks  was  asking  for  speak- 
ers to  address  meetings  and  for  other  assistance  from  the 
Chicago  Women's  Trade  Union  League,  of  which  Mrs.  Ray- 


28       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

mond  Robins  was  then   President.     On   October   20  the 
League  sent  the  following  offer  to  District  Council  No.  6: 

"  Knowing  that  your  organization  is  at  present  involved  in 
an  extensive  strike  against  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  shops 
and  believing  that  in  the  consequent  great  pressure  of  work 
you  may  not  have  realized  in  what  ways  the  Women's  Trade 
Union  League  may  be  of  use  to  you,  our  Executive  Board  last 
night  voted  to  offer  you  our  services. 

"  When  our  local  leagues  have  definite  relationship  with  a 
strike,  we  ask  that  in  accepting  our  assistance  the  union  permit 
two  representatives  of  the  League  to  attend  all  meetings  of  the 
strike  committee  and  to  authorize  such  representation  through 
a  resolution  passed  by  the  executive  committee  of  the  union. 

**  The  reason  for  this  provision  is  to  ensure  our  keeping  in 
touch  with  the  union's  plans  of  work  arid  with  fresh  develop- 
ments in  the  situation  as  these  arise,  this  being  the  only  way 
in  which  we  can  intelligently  cooperate." 

On  October  28th  the  offer  was  formally  accepted  by  Presi- 
dent Noren,  with  the  assurance  that  District  Council  No.  6 
would  be  glad  to  have  representatives  from  the  League  act 
with  the  Strike  Committee.  A  Strike  Committee  was  im- 
mediately organized  by  the  League  and  began  to  work 
through  the  following  sub-committees:  Strike  fund  com- 
mittee, of  which  Mrs.  Robins  was  Chairman;  Picket  Com- 
mittee, of  which  Miss  Steghagen  was  Chairman,  and  Miss 
Ellen  Gates  Starr  a  member;  Grievance  Committee,  under 
the  Chairmanship  of  Miss  Katherine  Coman,  an  economist, 
and  committees  on  Co-operation,  Organization,  Publicity, 
Speakers,  Meetings,  Relief,  Rent,  etc.  The  list  of  com- 
mittee workers  included  some  of  the  most  prominent  citizens 
of  Chicago.  Men  and  women  of  the  highest  standing  and 
reputation  in  their  own  fields,  representing  all  occupations 
and  classes,  from  politics  to  social  service,  were  drawn  into 
the  fight,  and  in  various  ways  not  only  expressed  their 
opinions  on  the  issues  in  favor  of  the  strikers,  but  worked 
for  them  and  got  others  to  work  for  them  as  well. 

On  November  2nd  the  Grievance  Committee  began  activ- 
ities by  holding  a  breakfast-meeting  at  King's  Restaurant, 
where  12  girl  strikers  told  their  stories  of  grievances  to  the 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  2d 

committee.  These  stories  were  later  published  in  a  report 
of  the  Committee,  and  many  of  them  have  already  been 
referred  to  in  describing  the  conditions  that  led  to  the  strike. 
The  report  was  published  with  an  introduction  by  Professor 
Coman,  summarizing  the  main  grievances,  and  in  this  con- 
cise form  it  became  very  effective  as  publicity  material. 

A  meeting  was  called  at  Hull  House  by  Mrs.  Robins, 
the  result  of  which  was  the  organization  of  the  "  Citizens' 
Committee."  This  committee  published  a  report  on  Novem- 
ber .5,  prepared  by  Professor  Mead,  Miss  Breckinridge  and 
Miss  Nicholes,  and  based  on  testimony  of  employes  of  17 
firms  and  from  31  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  shops.  The 
opinion  and  recommendations  of  the  committee  were  as 
follows : 

"  In  the  opinion  of  this  committee,  the  natural  method  of 
removing  the  causes  of  irritation  in  the  shops  and  of  making  a 
more  healthful  social  life  there  possible,  is  some  form  of  shop 
organization  among  the  workers  in  the  shop.  The  industry 
is  so  very  complicated,  the  labor  so  highly  subdivided,  the  de- 
pendence, as  yet.  of  the  operatives  upon  the  foremen  is  so  great, 
that  it  seems  next  to  impossible  to  bring  about  normal  condi- 
tions, unless  the  operatives  themselves  are  able  to  express  their 
own  views  and  their  own  complaints  through  committees  and 
this  without  fear  of  loss  of  position  or  the  enmity  of  the  fore- 
man *  *  *  Some  form  of  representation  of  the  operatives, 
which  will  mediate  between  the  worker  and  the  employer,  seems 
to  be  necessary  in  order  that  the  point  of  view  and  the  condi- 
tions of  the  operatives  may  be  recognized  in  the  matter  of  shop 
discipline,  and  especially  in  order  that  minute  grievances  may 
find  a  natural  expression  instead  of  being  piled  up  to  give  rise 
to  such  widespread  industrial  and  social  disturbances  as  we  have 
witnessed  during  the  last  ten  days." 

In  the  meantime  meetings  were  being  organized  and 
speakers  secured  with  the  help  of  the  Strike  Committee. 
Mrs.  Raymond  Robins,  who  was  at  that  time  directing  most 
of  the  relief  work,  was  herself  addressing  strike  meetings 
and  securing  speakers.  Mrs.  Ella  Stewart  of  the  National 
American  Suffrage  Association,  Mrs.  A.  W.  Thompson, 
Miss  Phelps  and  many  others,  as  well  as  women  prominent 


80       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

in  the  English  labor  movement,  such  as  Miss  Margaret 
Bondfield,  Miss  Marion  Ward,  Miss  Agnes  Murphy,  and 
Mrs.  Philip  Snowden,  were  a  few  of  those  who  showed  what 
they  thought  of  the  strike  by  going  to  the  strikers'  halls  day 
after  day  to  address  mass  meetings.  Mr.  Dvorak  writes 
that:  "Eighteen  of  the  largest  halls  in  Chicago  were  packed 
daily — some  even  twice  daily — and  speakers  in  every 
language  counselled  and  spurred  the  thousands  to  action." 

But  perhaps  the  most  important  service  rendered  by  these 
committees  in  the  early  days  of  the  strike  was  that  of  the 
Picket  Committee,  whose  work  not  only  in  aiding  the  pickets 
but  in  giving  publicity  to  the  outrageous  conduct  of  the 
police  and  strike-breakers  did  as  much  as  anything  during 
the  first  few  weeks  toward  swinging  the  weight  of  public 
opinion  to  the  side  of  the  strikers.  The  campaign  of  violence 
and  brutality  that  the  Chicago  police  entered  upon  from  the 
very  beginning  was  consistent  with  their  attitude  in  all  the 
later  strikes  of  the  Chicago  clothing  workers.  It  took  the 
form  not  only  of  injustice  and  \iolence  on  their  own  part, 
but  of  winking  at  such  illegal  acts  as  the  carrying  of  con- 
cealed weapons  and  unprovoked  assaults  by  hired  guards 
and  strike-breakers  or  private  detectives.  Miss  Ellen  Gates 
Starr  and  witnesses  before  the  Senate  Committee  testified 
that  the  activities  of  police  and  of  private  detectives  hired 
to  "  protect  "  strike-breakers  to  and  from  buildings  were 
actually  influential  in  spreading  the  strike.  For  example, 
one  statement  was:  "  There  were  pickets  and  detectives  out- 
side of  the  building  that  we  saw  when  going  to  work.  I 
never  worked  under  police  protection  before  and  it  worried 
me,  and  I  couldn't  work  any  more." 

All  possible  efforts  were  made  to  maintain  peace  and 
order  in  the  picket  lines,  and  there  was  surprisingly  little 
violence  on  the  part  of  the  strikers  in  view  of  the  provoca- 
tion. In  an  effort  to  eliminate  violence  as  much  as  possible, 
the  following  picket  rules  were  printed  and  distributed 
among  the  strikers : 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  81 

RULES  FOR  PICKETS. 

Don't  walk  in  groups  of  more  than  two  or  three. 

Don't  stand  in  front  of  the  shop :  walk  up  and  down  the  block. 

Don't  stop  the  person  you  want  to  talk  to :  walk  alongside  of 
him. 

Don't  get  excited  and  shout  when  you  are  talking. 

Don't  put  your  hand  on  the  person  you  are  talking  to. 

Don't  touch  his  sleeve  or  button :  This  may  be  construed  as 
a  technical  assault. 

Don't  call  anyone  "  scab  "  or  use  abusive  language  of  any 
kind. 

Plead,  persuade,  appeal,  but  do  not  threaten. 

If  a  policeman  arrests  you  and  you  are  sure  you  have  com- 
mitted no  oflPense,  take  his  number  and  give  it  to  your  Union 
Officer. 

In  spite  of  these  precautions  the  attacks  continued,  and 
"  every  day  strikers  reported  to  headquarters  with  tales  of 
how  they  had  been  shot  at  and  attacked  by  armed  strike- 
breakers. Protests  galore  were  made  to  Leroy  Steward, 
Chief  of  Police,  but  he  only  shook  his  head  sagely,  and  said : 
'  Wait  until  the  strike  is  over! '  " 

Miss  Steghagen,  Miss  Ellen  Gates  Starr  and  Miss  Frank- 
lin, all  members  of  the  Picket  Committee,  testified  to  the 
rough  handling  of  pickets,  of  which  they  were  eye-witnesses. 
Miss  Starr  sent  the  following  account  of  one  case  to  the 
daily  papers: 

"  I  went  first  to  a  dingy  hall,  ill  ventilated  and  crowded,  to 
meet  the  pickets  and  plan  our  orderly  and  law-abiding  course, 
and  then  to  the  factory  of  Price  at  Franklin  and  Van  Buren 
Streets. 

"  About  the  door  stood  twenty-one  or  twenty-two  men.  It 
must  be  conceded  that  they  '  Obstructed  the  street '  more  than 
a  group  of  three  rather  small  women,  who  are  never  allowed  to 
stand  for  an  instant^  but  are  ordered,  usually  roughly,  to  *  move 
on '  and  '  go  about  their  business.'  These  men,  it  is  true,  were 
about  their  business  of  holding  the  street  for  Price  &  Co.  I 
addressed  myself  civilly  to  a  police  officer  and  asked  him  why 
these  twenty-two  men  were  allowed  to  stand  on  the  pavement 
and  I  was  not.  He  answered  (somewhat  shamefacedly;  I  think 
that  particular  officer  did  not  like  his  job),  that  they  were  all 
sworn    officers,    and    added,    '  Don't    ask    me    questions,    lady.' 


82       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

*  You  have  your  orders,  I  suppose?  '  *  Yes,  I  have.'  On  which 
I  tendered  him  my  sympathy  and  proceeded  to  interrogate  the 
so-called  '  officers.' 

"  After  a  time  a  superior  officer  arrived  who  was  insolent  and 
brutal  and  absolutely  outside  his  rights,  as  I  was  entirely  within 
mine.  I  was  then  alone  having  separated  myself  from  the  girls, 
and  was  simply  walking  back  and  forth  in  front  of  the  factory. 
After  roughly  asking  me,  '  Who  are  you  ?  '  and  '  What  are  you 
doing  here  '  and  hearing  that  I  was  simply  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  and  a  settlement  worker  here  in  the  interest  of 
justice  and  fair  play,  he  informed  me  that  if  I  passed  by  once 
more  I  would  be  sent  to  the  station.  I  then  withdrew  to  the 
opposite  side  of  the  street  and  watched  matters  from  there. 

"  The  modus  operandi  was  to  bundle  the  strikebreakers  out, 
surrounded  by  the  hired  '  detectives,'  directly  to  the  cars  which 
halted  precisely  in  front  of  the  door  so  that  no  pickets  should 
be  allowed  to  speak  to  them." 

In  November  a  committee  was  appointed  to  inquire 
whether  manufacturers  could  put  up  cots  in  factories  for 
scabs.  It  was  in  violation  of  health  and  building  ordinances, 
but  the  law  had  been  cleverly  evaded  and  the  committee 
could  do  nothing. 

Every  day  was  marked  by  arrests  and  assaults,  and  gen- 
erally at  least  one  riot  in  some  part  of  the  city.  Finally  the 
climax  was  reached  in  December  when  two  pickets  were  shot 
and  killed  by  strike-breakers.  On  December  3,  Charles 
Lazinskas  was  attacked  and  shot  in  front  of  the  Royal 
Tailors'  establishment,  and  on  December  15,  Frank  Nag- 
reckis  was  shot  while  picketing.  The  death  of  Lazinskas 
came  at  a  crucial  moment  for  the  strikers,  while  an  agree- 
ment was  being  negotiated  in  the  office  of  the  Mayor  of 
Chicago.  The  effect  of  his  death  and  funeral  on  the  attitude 
of  the  workers  toward  the  agreement  is  described  in  an 
article  by  Mr.  Dvorak: 

"  There  never  was  a  funeral  in  Chicago  such  as  was  held  in 
the  case  of  the  murdered  garment-striker.  Thousands  of  men, 
women  and  girls  marched.  On  their  coat  lapels  each  striker 
had  a  piece  of  crepe  pinned  down  with  the  union  botton  of  the 
garment  workers.  *  *  *  At  Hod  Carriers  Hall,  after  the 
funeral  they  condemned  the  pending  agreement  in  the  most 
bitter  terms." 


Charles  Lazlnskas 


Frank  Nagreckis 


Strikers  Killed  in  1910  Strike 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  33 

This  incident  and  a  great  parade  and  demonstration  of  the 
strikers  in  protest  against  the  brutality  of  the  police  pro- 
duced a  marked  effect  on  public  opinion,  and  thereafter 
there  was  considerably  less  violence. 

Early  in  November  important  changes  were  made  in  the 
organization  and  control  of  the  strike  work,  by  the  creation 
of  what  was  called  the  Joint  Strike  Conference  Board.  The 
change  was  made  necessary  by  reason  of  the  loss  of  faith 
of  the  workers  in  their  own  leaders  among  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers.  Just  as  the  strike  appeared  to  be  progress- 
ing with  enthusiasm  and  a  fair  chance  of  success,  Mr.  Rick- 
ert.  President  of  the  United  Garment  Workers,  signed  the 
following  agreement  with  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx,  dated  November  5,  and  submitted  it  to  the  strikers 
for  their  vote: 

"  AGREEMENT  SIGNED  BY  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
UNITED  GARMENT  WORKERS  OF  AMERICA  AND 
THE  FIRM  OF  HART,  SCHAFFNER  AND  MARX. 

"The  International  President  of  the  United  Garment  Workers 
of  America  agrees  to  recommend  the  return  of  all  former  em- 
ployees of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  upon  the  understanding 
between  himself  and  the  heads  of  the  firm  that  one  person  shall 
be  selected  by  the  firm  and  one  by  the  United  Garment  Workers 
of  America,  these  two  to  select  a  third,  and  these  three  to  take 
up  the  alleged  grievances  of  the  former  employees  of  the  firm 
and  to  devise  methods,  both  as  to  redress  and  the  avoidance  of 
like  difficulties  in  the  future. 

"  This  instrument  shall  not  be  considered  as  a  recognition  of 
the  union,  nor  shall  the  question  of  union  or  open  shop  organi- 
zation be  submitted  to  or  passed  upon  by  the  committee  ap- 
pointed herein;  nor  shall  the  question  of  open  shop  be  con- 
sidered as  a  grievance  on  the  part  of  the  former  employees  of 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx." 

As  Rickert  himself  records  in  his  report  to  the  United 
Garment  Workers'  Convention  in  1912:  "  To  giy  surprise 
the  people  voted  it  down — they  gave  it  practically  little  or 
no  consideration." 

How  the  strikers  felt  about  the  agreement  was  only  too 
evident  in  the  promptness  and  vehemence  with  which  they 


34       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

rejected  it,  and  Rickert  was  forced  to  drop  the  plan  and 
turn  his  attention  seriously  to  the  important  work  of 
organization.  But  he  had  lost  the  confidence  of  his  people. 
The  strikers,  their  faith  not  only  in  Rickert,  but  in  many  of 
their  other  leaders  having  been  shaken,  appealed  for  help  to 
the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor.  Mr.  John  Fitzpatrick, 
President  of  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor,  agreed  to 
help  them  and  from  that  time  on  devoted  his  entire  time  to 
their  cause.  The  result  of  the  strikers'  appeal  was  the 
organization  of  the  new  Joint  Strike  Conference  Board. 
The  Board  consisted  of  two  representatives  each  from  the 
United  Garment  Workers  of  America,  District  Council 
No.  6,  Strike  Committee  of  Special  Order  Garment  Work- 
ers, Strike  Committee  of  Ready  Made  Garment  Workers, 
Chicago  Federation  of  Labor,  and  the  Women's  Trade 
Union  League.  This  Board  took  over  all  work  that  had 
formerly  been  handled  by  independent  committees  from 
each  of  the  organizations  represented. 

The  problem  of  strike  benefits  and  the  need  for  organized 
relief  was  brought  home  to  the  strikers  and  the  Committee 
by  an  incident  that  occurred  on  the  11th  of  November.  Some- 
thing like  ten  thousand  people  came  to  the  headquarters  at 
275  La  Salle  Street.  The  crowd,  many  thousands  of  men, 
women  and  children,  were  denied  admittance  to  the  larger 
wheat  pit  on  the  ground  floor  which  it  was  understood  had 
been  reserved  for  their  use.  They  were  not  permitted  to 
stay  because  the  fire  department  feared  a  disaster.  The 
great  crowd  gathered  in  the  street  in  front  of  the  building. 
All  had  relief  orders  for  various  amounts  but  there  was  no 
money  in  the  treasury^  The  indignation  and  excitement 
cannot  be  described.  Finally,  John  Fitzpatrick  addressed 
the  crowd  from  the  fire-escape,  explaining  that  they  would 
be  attended  to  in  their  various  halls.  The  strikers  repaired 
to  the  halls.  Some  had  in  despair  and  anger  destroyed  their 
vouchers.  Some  received  their  strike  pay.  It  was  a  heart- 
rending sight  as  from  early  morning  till  late  afternoon  they 
waited  in  the  halls,  the  corridors  and  outside  in  the  streets. 
Finally,  Mr.  Fitzpatrick  addressed  them,  explaining  that 


John  Fitzpatrick 


Mrs.  Raymond  Robins 


Jane  Addams 


Ellen  Gates  Starr 


Edward  N.  Xockles 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  85 

they  would  be  attended  to  in  their  various  halls."  Miss 
Nestor  of  the  Relief  Committee  went  around  with  the  Pay- 
ing Committee  from  hall  to  hall  redeeming  the  vouchers. 

It  was  evident  that  some  organized  method  of  relief  must 
be  undertaken,  and  the  Strike  Conference  decided  on  a  plan. 
All  the  vouchers  that  were  out  were  to  be  redeemed  but  no 
more  were  to  be  issued.  At  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Fitzpat- 
rick,  the  Committee  decided  to  establish  commissary  stores 
along  the  lines  successfully  followed  by  the  United  Mine 
Workers  and  the  Building  Trades  Council.    In  the  operation  ^     i^ 


of  these  commissaries,  Mr.  James  Mullenbach  was  called  \  p 
into  consultation,  and  with  his  help  and  that  of  his  assist 


o.^' 


into  consultation,  ana  witn  ms  neip  ana  tnat  oi  nis  assist-    .   \  i 
ants  the  Board  opened    four    commissary    stores,    one    on  q, V  f\  Aijr^* 
Lincoln  Street,  one  on  Blue  Island  Avenue,  one  on  Johnson  ^     Kp; 
Street  and  the  fourth  at  West  Fourteenth  Place.     Strike    ^^ 
benefits  were  given  not  in  cash  but  in  fixed  rations,  varying 
with  the  size  of  the  family.     Tickets  were  issued  by  Mr. 
Fitzpatrick  to  the  various  shop  chairmen  who  distributed 
them  to  the  strikers,  each  ticket  being  issued  on  a  monthly 
basis  and  entitling  the  holder  to  call  for  supplies  weekly. 
Signatures  of  the  shop  chairmen  were  checked  up  on  each 
ticket  by  the  superintendent  in  the  stores.    The  amount  and 
kind  of  relief  afforded  by  these  tickets  can  be  seen  from  the 
following  list  of  rations  allowed  a  family  of  five  for  one 
week: 

Bread,  eighteen  loaves;  sugar,  five  pounds;  oatmeal,  two 
large  packages;  coffee,  one  pound;  beans,  five  pounds;  ham, 
ten  pounds. 

The  opening  of  commissary  stores  was  only  one  form  of 
relief  work  undertaken  by  the  Strike  Conference  Board. 
Lunch  rooms  for  pickets  were  maintained  at  convenient  lo- 
cations. A  separate  committee  handled  the  problem  of  rent 
rehef  and  members  of  the  committee  went  around  personally 
interviewing  the  landlords.  The  gas  company  was  found  to 
be  sympathetic  and  in  no  case  was  gas  turned  off  after  the 
situation  had  been  explained  by  a  member  of  the  committee. 
Coal  was  secured  at  wholesale  prices  and  in  cases  of  need 
supplied  by  the  committee  out  of  the  relief  funds. 


86       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

But  with  all  their  efforts,  the  Board  could  not  have  handled 
the  tremendous  work  of  rehef  had  it  not  been  for  the  gen- 
erous and  continuous  support  of  other  organizations  and 
of  individuals  who  gave  their  time,  money,  supplies,  and 
whatever  influence  they  had  to  the  cause,  of  the  strikers.  The 
commissary  stores  themselves  were  ably  assisted  by  men  and 
women  who  gave  their  services  free  of  charge,  or  whose 
services  were  paid  for  by  the  organizations  they  represented. 
Groceries  were  purchased  from  companies  that  sold  them  at 
wholesale  prices  and  frequently  at  cost  prices.  The  editor 
of  the  Jewish  Courier,  Mr.  Lipsky,  with  the  assistance  of 
others,  carried  on  relief  through  orders  on  local  grocery 
stores  and  kosher  butchers.  A  fund  for  milk  was  started 
by  Mrs.  Bowen  with  the  contribution  of  one  thousand  dollars 
and  her  own  services  as  Chairman  of  the  committee.  In 
addition  the  Citizens'  Conmiittee  furnished  124,075  quarts  of 
milk  up  to  February  2.  But  the  greatest  contribution  along 
those  hnes  was  made  by  the  Jewish  Workingmen's  Confer- 
ence. For  ten  weeks  they  issued  individual  meal  tickets 
weekly  to  three  thousand  strikers  entithng  them  to  one  meal 
a  day.  The  tickets  were  issued  on  restaurants  in  three  im- 
portant centers  and  were  good  for  seven  15-cent  meals. 
Altogether  it  is  estimated  that  the  Jewish  Workingmen's 
Conference  contributed  about  thirty-five  thousand  dollars  to 
the  relief  of  the  strikers. 

Public  sympathy  manifested  itself  in  many  other  ways. 
Clothing  and  shoes  were  distributed  to  the  workers  from 
Northwestern  University  settlement,  Hull  House,  and  many 
other  centers  of  distribution.  Labor  papers  all  over  the 
country  took  up  the  fight  and  unions  began  to  send  in  cash 
donations.  The  Chicago  Daily  Socialist  through  its  sale  of 
strike  editions  was  able  to  turn  in  the  sum  of  three  thousand 
dollars  for  the  reUef  of  the  strikers.  The  Jewish  Voi-waerts 
of  New  York  raised  $415  for  rehef  and  added  to  it  $1,800 
collected  by  a  house-to-house  canvass  of  the  Jewish  district 
in  Chicago,  given  through  the  Jewish  Workingmen's  Con- 
ference. All  kinds  of  professional  people  offered  their 
services.    "  Doctors  agreed  to  treat  patients  free  of  charge. 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  37 

Barbers  gave  free  shaves,  theatres  gave  benefit  per- 
formances. Private  families  housed  and  fed  homeless 
strikers.  Druggists  gave  free  drugs.  Grocers  and  butchers 
gave  free  food  supplies  to  the  various  free  supply  and  re- 
lief stations.  Clubs  and  societies  gave  benefit  balls  and 
entertainments.  Song  writers  and  artists  offered  their  pro- 
ductions and  gave  the  strikers  the  full  profits,  and  the  hotel 
keepers  refused  to  house  the  strike  breakers."  The  Chicago 
City  Ciub  Bulletin  printed  texts  of  successful  agreements 
then  in  existence  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia.  The 
Political  Equality  League  made  inquiries  and  many  other 
leagues  and  clubs  followed  its  example  with  requests  for 
information  and  for  speakers  informed  on  the  subject  to 
address  meetings.  Business  Men's  Groups  asked  at  head- 
quarters how  they  might  be  sure  that  they  were  not  I^uying 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  garments,  and  many  retail 
houses  found  it  profitable  to  remove  labels  of  strike-bound 
houses  from  their  garments.  The  Illinois  Suffrage  Associa- 
tion sent  in  financial  contributions,  the  Socialist  Women's 
Strike  Committee  gave  valuable  assistance  throughout  the 
strike,  and  churches  of  all  denominations  responded  with 
generous  contributions.  A  letter  advocating  arbitration  and 
organization  of  the  workers  was  sent  by  the  Reverend  Jenkin 
Lloyd  Jones,  endorsed  by  the  Industrial  Committee  of  the 
Churches  of  Chicago,  to  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx.  When 
no  reply  came  from  the  firm  the  letter  and  a  statement  of 
the  whole  circumstance  were  issued  as  an  open  letter.  The 
following  excerpts  are  enough  to  show  the  general  tenor 
of  the  letter: 

"  The  following  members  of  the  Industrial  Committee  of  the 
Churches  of  Chicago  call  the  attention  of  the  public  to  the  ac- 
companying letter. 

"  The  principles  and  methods  it  advocates  are  already  exten- 
sively used  in  industry  in  Chicago  and  throughout  the  country, 
and  have  promoted  a  large  measure  of  industrial  peace. 

"  We  believe  that  the  time  has  come  for  public  opinion  in 
Chicago  to  voice  from  all  possible  sources,  a  demand  for  their 
application  to  the  garment-making  industry,  and  particularly 
for  the  settlement  of  the  present  strike  by  some  joint  agreement 
between  the  contending  parties. 


38       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

REV.  JENKIN  LLOYD  JONES'  LETTER. 

"  *  The  following  communication  was  addressed  to  the  firm 
fifteen  days  ago.  Whether  in  the  travail  it  ever  reached  the 
eyes  of  the  firm,  I  have  no  way  of  knowing.  I  now  give  it  to 
the  public,  hoping  that  it  will  help  make  public  sentiment.  The 
developments  of  the  last  two  weeks  confirm  the  conviction  ex- 
pressed in  the  letter.  The  only  way  for  employers  out  of  this 
trouble  is  through  it.  Once  the  willingness  to  deal  with  the 
employees  in  their  organized  capacity  is  realized  it  would  be 
quite  possible  to  organize  a  disinterested,  high  minded,  per- 
manent court  of  appeal  to  which  perplexities  too  great  to  be 
solved  by  the  two  parties  could  be  referred. 

"  *  You  can  doubtless  crush  out  this  instinct  to  cooperate 
among  your  employees,  but  it  will  only  be  for  a  time — the  march 
of  civilization  is  back  of  them  and  against  you.  All  the  higher 
handicrafts  have  practically  vindicated  their  rights  to  organize. 

"  *  Has  not  the  time  gone  by  when  the  intelligent  business 
man  can  talk  about  "  his  business  being  interfered  with  "  by 
those  who  have  no  rights  in  it  when  labor  makes  demands? 
Legally  speaking,  the  title  is  yet  vested  in  your  corporation; 
but  ethically  speaking,  the  thousands  of  employees  who  help 
make  your  business,  without  which  your  business  cannot  con- 
tinue, are  partners  in  the  concern ;  they  have  vested  rights ; 
many  of  them  have  brought  their  families  across  the  seas ;  they 
have  staked  their  earthly  careers  in  their  vocations,  and  have 
acquired  an  efficiency  oftentimes  through  successive  generations, 
which  constitute  an  asset,  which  may  well  be  set  against  your 
capital  *  *  ♦  Hundreds,  perhaps  thousands,  of  your  em- 
ployees are  traveling  over  the  road  which  your  forbears  have 
traveled.  They  are  getting  ready  to  take  your  places  when  you 
are  gone.  They  have  a  right  to  be  reckoned  with  by  organized 
capital  as  organized  labor.* " 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  purely  financial  con- 
tributions received  by  the  Strike  Committee  of  the  Women's 
Trade  Union  League,  taking  no  account  of  services  or 
supplies  given  free  of  charge: 

Organized  Labor   $41,182 

Socialist  Women's  Strike  Committee 5,432 

Churches 1,310 

Clubs 712 

Socialist  Party 1,119 

Emplo3res    306 

Teachei  s  and  students 235 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  89 

Individuals    8,575 

Chicago  Daily  Socialist  (Collections) 2,300 

Card    (Collections)    479 

Miscellaneous    (Collections) 2,774 

Polish  Socialists 1,750 

District  Council  No.  6,  Donations 4,000 

We  have  already  seen  how  the  publicity  given  by  the 
committees  to  the  grievances  of  the  workers  and  to  the  treat- 
ment of  strikers  by  the  police  influenced  the  opinion  of  the 
general  public.  But  another  factor  was  brought  to  bear 
on  public  opinion  during  the  course  of  the  strike,  that  proved 
to  be  as  potent  as  the  others  in  rousing  a  sense  of  the  in- 
justice of  the  situation.  This  factor  was  the  stubborn  un- 
willingness shown  by  both  associations  of  manufacturers 
to  arbitrate  the  demands  of  the  workers  or  even  to  treat 
with  them.  The  first  effective  evidence  of  this  attitude  ap- 
peared in  connection  with  another  attempt  at  settlement, 
this  time  initiated  by  the  action  of  Alderman  Merriam. 
After  several  unsuccessful  attempts,  a  resolution  was  finally 
passed  by  the  City  Council  providing  for  the  appointment 
of  a  conmiittee  to  arbitrate  and  attempt  to  settle  the  strike. 
Representatives  of  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx 
agreed  to  meet  the  committee  and  the  union  leaders  in  an 
attempt  to  arrive  at  some  agreement,  but  members  of  the 
manufacturers'  associations  refused  to  participate  in  a  con- 
ference if  any  union  representatives  were  present.  Alder- 
man Merriam  in  a  statement  to  one  of  the  daily  papers  after 
meeting  with  representatives  of  both  associations,  said: 

"  They  declared  they  would  not  consent  to  any  arbitration 
of  the  questions  at  issue  in  any  form  or  upon  any  terms.  They 
further  stated  that  they  expected  their  own  employees  to  return 
unconditionally  if  the  agreement  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  was  ratified.  Arbitration  is  a  firmly  fixed  principle  in 
industrial  disputes,  and  in  my  judgment  it  ought  to  be  applied 
in  this  case.  Those  who  decline  to  accept  it  assume  a  grave 
responsibihty  to  the  community.  If  industrial  war  continues 
the  public  should  know  exactly  where  this  responsibility  lies." 

Even  more  effective  than  the  publicity  thus  given  to  the 
employers'  attitude  toward  the  proposed  arbitration  were 


40       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  disclosures  made  later  by  an  Illinois  Senate  Committee 
appointed  to  investigate  into  the  causes  and  facts  of  the 
strike  by  a  resolution  passed  in  the  Senate  January  10.  The 
Committee  consisted  of  Senators  Henson,  O'Connor, 
McKenzie,  Johnson  and  Gibson.  Although  the  report  of 
the  Committee  to  the  Senate  was  not  made  until  March  9, 
a  great  deal  of  publicity  was  given  to  the  testiipony  pre- 
sented during  its  two  weeks  of  hearings  in  January.  In 
reply  to  an  invitation  by  the  Senators  to  the  Association  to 
submit  a  plan  of  settlement,  Mr.  Rose,  President  of  the 
National  Wholesale  Tailors  Association,  sent  the  following 
letter : 

"  The  National  Wholesale  Tailors  Association  respectfully 
declines  to  submit  to  such  a  proposition,  as  no  strike  now 
exists  in  our  branch  of  the  industry.  All  of  our  employes  whom 
we  can  use  have  returned  to  work." 

The  Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee,  in  response  to 
this  refusal,  which  was  incorporated  in  the  minutes,  made 
the  following  statement: 

"  I  want  to  say  this  for  the  benefit  of  the  balance  of  the  com- 
mittee, that  the  state  of  Illinois  and  the  people  of  Chicago  can- 
not permit  some  manufacturers  or  labor  unions  to  arbitrarih' 
stop  the  wheels  of  progress  in  Illinois  and  cause  suffering,  and 
I  am  very  frank  to  say  to  you  that  if  I  had  the  power  I  would 
put  the  men  in  jail  who  refused  to  arbitrate  this  question  now. 
*     *     *    No  controversy  can  occur  without  a  grievance." 

Even  newspapers  hostile  to  the  strikers  up  to  this  time 
condemned  this  attitude  in  editorial  comments  such  as  this: 

"  Hunger  and  cold  as  potent  peace  makers  alienate  the 
sympathy  of  the  great  majority  of  reasonable  and  humane 
citizens." 

Important  evidence  was  disclosed  also  by  the  Senate 
Investigation  Committee  concerning  the  blacklist  system 
carried  on  by  the  Medinah  Temple  labor  office.  The 
following  examples  are  typical  of  the  testimony  of  other 
witnesses : 

Witness:  In  Nov.,  1914f,  I  worked  at  Fred  Kaufman's  and 
we  went  out  at  noon.     Then  I  was  out  about  6  or  8  months  and 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  41 

after  that  I  applied  for  a  position  at  the  Medinah  Temple  office 
and  they  refused  to  give  it  to  me  until  I  resigned  from  the 
union.     I  did  so. 

Chairman:     Who  asked  you  to  resign.'' 

Witness :  Mr.  Isaacs.  [Mr.  Isaacs  was  known  to  practi- 
cally all  the  workers  and  was  called  to  testify  himself  before 
the  Committee.  He  was  in  charge  of  the  so-called  Labor  Bu- 
reau, and  kept  records  of  all  the  workers.]  I  handed  in  my 
resignation  and  then  they  promised  me  a  position  but  never 
gave  it  to  me  and  they  told  me  to  come  over  from  one  day  to 
the  next.  He  asked  me  one  day  if  I  would  do  him  a  favor  and 
I  asked  him  what  it  was,  and  he  offered  me  $10  to  go  to  the 
organization  headquarters  and  secure  him  the  names  of  those 
men  in  the  office  at  that  time.  I  went  but  could  not  find  any- 
body there  except  officials.  After  that  I  went  back  to  Mr. 
Isaacs'  office  and  gave  him  the  names  and  he  asked  me  if  I  got 
any  more  names,  and  I  said :  "  Here  are  the  names  of  the  men 
in  the  office  at  present."  He  said  "  These  men  I  got.  I  don't 
want  those  names  but  get  the  names  that  I  have  not  got."  He 
showed  me  some  letters  and  tears  off  the  bottom  and  says: 
"  These  names  I  have  gotten  from  men  who  send  me  the  reports 
every  day."  He  said :  "  They  find  out  who  you  are  and  what 
you  are  and  what  goes  on  in  the  union,  and  then  report  to  me 
every  day."     He  said:     "  They  are  paid  by  me  for  doing  this." 

He  gave  me  $5  for  that  and  said  "  I  will  give  you  the  other 
$5  when  you  get  some  more.  I  will  give  you  a  week's  time.  In 
the  meantime  I  will  try  and  find  you  a  position,"  which  he  did. 

•  •  *  I  worked  there  from  August  to  September  and  then 
was  discharged  without  reason. 

I  went  back  to  Isaacs  and  he  said :  "  You  go  over  and  get 
me  some  more  names  and  I  will  see  what  I  can  do." 

After  that  I  went  to  the  Chicago  Tailors  and  asked  for  a  posi- 
tion without  going  to  the  office.  Mr.  Strauss  hired  me  and 
asked  whether  I  had  a  card.  I  said  "  No,  but  I  can  get  it."  He 
said :     "  I  will  telephone  over  and  see  if  you  are  all  right." 

[The  witness  worked  in  this  shop  3  or  4  days  and  then  met 
some  union  boys  and  went  to  a  meeting  and  finally  decided  to 
go  out  on  strike  with  the  others  in  that  shop.  When  he  got 
to  the  union  office  he  found  a  message  waiting  for  him  to  the 
effect  that  if  he  did  not  come  and  take  away  his  tools  they  would 
be  thrown  out.     He  went  back  and  took  his  tools  and  went  out.] 

Then  I  went  to  Isaacs  afterward,  time  and  time  again  for 
positions  and  he  said :  "  No.  We  can't  do  anything  for  you, 
you  will  starve  in  Chicago.  There  is  nothing  for  you;  we  will 
not  give  you  a  job." 


42       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

[The  witness  went  to  Detroit  and  after  more  than  a  year 
wrote  to  Isaacs  to  see  if  he  could  get  a  job  yet  and  Isaacs  wrote 
him  a  letter,  saying  that  Association  houses  were  working  on 
an  open  shop  plan.  On  his  return  the  witness  went  to  Mr. 
Tobias  and  Mr.  Morris,  both  associated  with  Mr.  Isaacs  in  the 
Medinah  Temple  office,  but  was  not  able  to  get  anything  at  all. 
He  was  completely  barred  from  employment  in  all  Association 
houses  from  that  time  on.] 

Another  witness  testified  that  he  was  told  to  go  to  Medinah 
Temple  for  a  permit  to  work  and  they  wouldn't  give  it,  but  gave 
no  reason  whatever.  He  was  required  to  resign  from  the  unioi^ 
before  he  could  get  any  work  after  going  out  on  strike. 

Another  witness  claimed  that  he  was  blacklisted  in  St.  Louis 
because  of  his  union  activities  and  when  he  tried  to  get  work  in 
Chicago  he  found  that  the  Medinah  Temple  Ofiice  had  his  com- 
plete record  and  he  was  blacklisted  again. 

Another  witness,  the  wife  of  a  cutter,  testified  that  her  hus- 
band had  been  unable  to  get  work  for  a  long  time.  "  I  went  to 
Mr.  Isaacs  because  my  husband  always  came  home  with  the 
same  story  that  he  could  not  get  a  permit  to  go  to  work  anc^ 
at  last  I  became  doubtful  and  I  said  I'd  like  to  know  the  reason 
why  and  I  should  go  and  see  what  was  stopping  him  from  getting 
a  position.     He  gave  me  Isaacs'  address  and  I  went  to  see  him. 

"  He  told  me,  after  I  asked  him  what  was  the  matter,  that  he 
(my  husband)  acted  as  a  radical  during  the  strike  and  that 
they  had  not  forgotten  about  it.  I  asked  him  if  he  had  any 
proofs  *  *  *  and  he  said  no,  but  they  had  a  list  of  matters 
that  they  knew  about  him  and  that  was  enough." 

Chairman :  "  Did  they  say  your  husband's  name  was  men- 
tioned in  that  list.'"' 

Witness :  "  Yes  Sir.  I  told  him  that  it  was  hard  for  me 
and  that  from  my  marriage  my  husband  was  considered  a  good 
workman,  but  he  said  he  could  do  nothing." 

In  its  report  to  the  Senate,  the  Committee  made  the  fol- 
lowing comments  on  the  evidence  in  regard  to  blacklisting: 

"  Your  committee  wish  to  report  that  in  view  of  the  testimony 
and  the  wording  of  the  statutes,  we  are  constrained  to  beheve 
that  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  said  labor  bureau  in 
the  Medinah  Temple,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  in  so  far  as  it  pre- 
vents persons  from  securing  employment,  is  in  violation  of  the 
statutes  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  is  derogatory  to  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  workers,  and  that  the  same  should  be  imme- 
diately dissolved." 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  48 

In  the  meantime,  Rickert  and  other  officers  of  the  United 
Garment  Workers  were  pressing  a  new  agreement  on  the 
strikers.  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreed  to  meet  a  com- 
mittee of  the  strikers,  as  suggested  by  Alderman  Merriam, 
although  the  Association  houses  refused.  The  proposed 
agreement  resulting  from  this  meeting  with  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx,  known  as  the  City  Hall  Agreement,  provided 
briefly  for  the  return  of  all  former  employees  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx,  except  those  who  were  guilty  of  vio- 
lence, within  fifteen  days  from  the  date  of  signing;  no  dis- 
crimination against  any  employees  because  of  membership  or 
activity  in  a  union;  and  for  the  creation  of  an  Arbitration 
Committee  of  five,  two  members  selected  by  each  party  and 
the  fifth  by  those  four,  to  take  up  and  consider  the  grievances 
of  the  employees  and  devise  a  method  for  settling  those  griev- 
ances in  the  future. 

This  agreement,  backed  by  the  full  approval  and  endorse- 
ment of  the  Joint  Strike  Conference  Board,  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers'  officers,  and  the  Mayor  of  Chicago,  was 
presented  to  the  strikers  for  their  consideration.  But  the 
strikers  were  unmistakably  opposed  to  the  terms.  The 
grounds  for  their  opposition  were  in  the  main  as  follows : 

1.  Inasmuch  as  the  agreement  affected  only  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx  workers,  acceptance  of  it  would  break 
the  strike  of  other  workers  who  would  still  be  out.  It  was 
too  much  like  a  betrayal  of  their  fellow  strikers. 

2.  The  clause  in  the  agreement  providing  that  workers 
guilty  of  violence  would  not  be  reinstated  created  a  great 
deal  of  resentment. 

3.  The  agreement  contained  no  specific  and  definite 
recognition  of  the  union. 

A  great  deal  of  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  on  the 
strikers  to  accept  this  agreement,  but  finally  on  December 
8th,  eight  days  after  the  proposed  agreement  was  put  before 
the  strikers,  Rickert  admitted  that  "  the  people  had  ex- 
pressed their  disapproval."  In  his  report  to  the  United 
Garment  Workers'  Convention  in  1912,  Rickert  says:  "  In 
turning  down  this  agreement,   the   people  repudiated  the 


44       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Strike  Board  and  Settlement  Committee  which  had  recom- 
mended its  acceptance."  The  Strike  Conference  Board, 
however,  in  the  words  of  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League 
Report,  "  recognized  the  supreme  right  of  the  strikers  to 
make  the  final  decision  on  their  own  affairs  "  and  again 
resumed  the  conduct  of  the  strike.  The  following  letter  was 
sent  to  the  City  Council  Committee  and  the  Mayor  inform- 
ing them  of  the  workers'  decision : 

"  We  beg  leave  to  report  to  you  the  refusal  of  the  workers 
of  Hart,  SchafFner  and  Marx  now  on  strike  to  accept  the  plan 
of  settlement  as  recommended  by  us. 

"  Every  reasonable  effort  has  been  made  to  secure  a  favorable 
result  in  the  submission  of  this  plan  of  settlement  to  the  striking 
employes  of  Hart,  Schaifner  and  Marx. 

"  The  refusal  of  the  representatives  of  the  National  Whole- 
sale Tailors'  Association  and  the  National  Wholesale  Clothiers' 
Association  to  accept  these  terms  of  settlement  and  the  public 
declaration  of  their  determination  to  '  fight  to  a  finish  *  has  re- 
sulted in  a  feeling  of  resentment  among  the  strikers  and  a, 
natural  desire  to  stand  or  fall  together.    *    ♦    ♦  " 

The  first  settlement  occurred  on  January  9,  when  the 
firm  of  Sturm  Mayer  settled  with  its  strikers  and  reinstated 
all  of  them. 

On  the  11th  of  January,  Rickert  presented  another  plan 
to  the  Joint  Conference  Board  and  Strikers'  Committee, 
authorizing  the  Board  to  offer  an  agreement  to  any  of  the 
firms  willing  to  accept  its  terms.  The  terms  were  briefly  as 
follows : 

1.  All  former  employees  were  to  return  within  ten  days 
of  the  signing  of  the  agreement.  No  mention  was  made  of 
exceptions  in  the  case  of  those  guilty  of  \aolence. 

2.  There  must  be  no  discrimination  against  workers  be- 
cause of  membership  in  the  United  Garment  Workers  of 
America. 

3.  An  arbitration  committee  of  three  was  to  be  chosen, 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  adjusting  all  other  griev- 
ances, and  their  ruling  was  to  be  binding. 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  45 

The  Board  passed  a  resolution  approving  the  agreement 
and   appointed   a   committee   composed   of  Rickert,    Mrs. 
Robins,  Mr.  Fitzpatrick,  and  Mr.  Hams  (a  member  of  the 
Strikers'  Executive  Committee),  to  consider  a  settlement.    ■ 
Hart,   Schaffner  and  Marx  signified  their  willingness  to  ^       . 
accept  this  agreement,  and  it  was  then  presented  to  the       ^ 
striking  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  workers.  ^ 

The  strike,  so  far  as  the  workers  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  were  concerned,  was  almost  over.  A  mass-meeting 
of  the  strikers  was  held  in  Hod  Carriers'  Hall.  The  meet- 
ing was  addressed,  among  others,  by  Hillman  and  Marim- 
pietri.  They  urged  acceptance  of  the  terms  of  the  agree- 
ment, which  provided  for  the  return  of  all  workers,  without 
discrimination  because  of  either  union  membership  or  activ- 
ity, and  for  the  establishment  of  arbitration  machinery  in 
the  adjustment  of  present  and  future  grievances.  The  terms 
meant  substantially,  if  not  literally,  union  recognition.  It 
was  for  this  and  for  the  removal  of  just  grievances  that  the 
strikers  had  been  fighting  for  months.  There  was,  of  course, 
some  opposition  to  these  terms.  But  after  considerable  dis- 
cussion, the  proposed  agreement  was  ratified  and  the  forward 
march  of  organized  labor  in  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx 
began. 

Mr.  Rickert's  account  of  the  same  event,  in  his  report  to 
the  United  Garment  Workers'  Convention,  was  as  follows: 

"  The  plan  was  submitted  to  the  people  in  the  various  halls 
and  was  approved  in  all  but  three  of  them ;  and  in  these  three, 
the  workers  who  had  gathered  there  were  not  employees  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx  *  *  *  Some  of  those  who  had  been  in 
favor  of  it  went  around  to  the  halls  and  in  the  public  highways 
afterwards  denouncing  it  because  it  did  not  provide  for  a  closed 
shop." 

The  result  was  that  the  agreement  as  approved  by  the 
Joint  Conference  Board  was  signed  by  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  and  by  Mr.  Rickert  and  went  into  effect  on  January 
14,  all  the  strikers  of  that  firm  returning  to  work.  The 
others,  of  course,  were  still  out  on  strike. 


46       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

^^     On  February  3rd,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Strikers'  Executive 
'x  Committee  at  which  Mr.  Rickert  and  his  organizers  were  the 
C/^      y"  only  ones  present,  the  general  strike  was  suddenly  declared 
}r    CLjiT       off.     This  action  was  taken  without  the  slightest  warning, 
t  l^  j^     without  a  referendum  vote  of  the  strikers,  without  even 
^y       formal  consultation  or  meeting  with  the  Joint  Conference 
}J^  Board,  which  for  14  weeks  had  had  charge  of  the  strike,  and 

which  represented  the  organizations  that  had  been  giving 
their  time,  money  and  resources  so  generously  to  the 
strikers.  It  was  done  while  representatives  of  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor  and  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League, 
the  principal  organizations  in  the  Board  besides  the  United 
Garment  Workers,  were  present  in  the  building  and  even 
on  the  same  floor.  The  Women's  Trade  Union  League 
called  it  a  "  hunger  bargain."  The  workers,  already  hard- 
pressed  by  the  long  winter  months  of  privation,  their  faith 
already  shaken  in  their  leaders,  were  now  demoralized  by 
this  action,  and  had  no  choice  but  to  give  in.  The  strike 
was  over. 

As  many  as  could  returned  to  work.  Many  who  went 
back  to  their  old  shops  were  refused  employment.  Others 
encountered  conditions  even  more  intolerable  than  before. 
A  frequent  answer  to  those  seeking  re-employment  would 
be :  "  You're  a  good  speaker,  go  down  to  your  halls  again, 
they  want  you  there."  And  so  they  trickled  back,  a  few  at 
a  time,  with  a  deep  and  underlying  bitterness  toward  those 
who  had  turned  their  long  fight  into  apparent  defeat.  They 
returned  without  agreement,  without  concessions,  without 
any  guarantee  for  fair  treatment,  without  any  adjustment 
or  means  of  adjustment  for  the  grievances  that  had  driven 
them  to  strike. 

Yet  in  more  important  ways,  even  for  those  who  went 
back  to  Association  houses,  the  strike  had  not  ended  in 
defeat.  Out  of  it  rose  a  new  generation  of  young  leaders 
who  were  to  help  the  clothing  workers  rise  to  a  position  of 
security,  power  and  well-being  that  sets  a  standard  for  other 
industries.  It  was  in  the  strike  of  1910  that  the  names  of 
Sidney  Hillman,  Frank  Rosenblum,   Sam  Levin,  A.  D. 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1910  47 

Marimpietri  and  many  other  future  leaders  of  the  workers 
first  emerge.  With  the  rise  of  these  leaders  there  appeared 
also  not  only  the  hope  of  a  new  regime,  but  a  long,  steady  ac- 
tive drive  toward  its  attainment.  The  organization  of  the 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  ivorkers  meant  alhiost  as  much  to 
all  the  other  clothing  workers  of  Chicago  as  to  themselves. 
From  1910  until  the  final  triumph  in  1919,  Chicago  was 
the  scene  of  a  series  of  attempts  to  organize  the  entire  mar- 
ket. Without  the  nucleus  formed  by  the  organized  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx  workers,  and  without  their  constant 
efforts  and  support,  which  they  were  only  in  a  position  to 
give  as  a  result  of  the  strike,  Chicago  might  still  be  an 
unorganized  sweat-shop  market. 

The  results  of  the  strike  as  far  as  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  workers  themselves  are  concerned  are  obvious.  Aside 
from  all  consideration  of  improved  conditions,  wages,  hours, 
the  agreement  of  1911  meant  the  beginning  of  a  relationship 
between  the  firm  and  its  employees,  unbroken  by  whatever 
storms  swept  over  the  rest  of  the  Chicago  clothing  industry, 
and  undisturbed  even  by  the  clothing  workers'  revolution  in 
1914.  It  meant  the  practical  and  successful  working  out  of 
an  experiment  in  collective  bargaining  and  the  development 
of  the  idea  of  permanent  impartial  machinery  for  the  adjust- 
ment of  industrial  disputes. 

As  a  means  of  educating  and  training  the  workers  for 
organization  and  organized  activity,  the  strike  was  of  the 
utmost  value.  It  was  not  only  a  matter  of  technical  training 
in  the  method  of  organizing  and  conducting  a  strike,  but  of 
the  actual  knowledge  of  each  other's  condition  and  realiza- 
tion of  their  community  of  interest.  As  a  result  of  this 
realization  and  of  the  bond  that  always  comes  of  fighting 
a  common  enemy  against  heavy  odds,  the  workers  came  out 
of  the  fight  with  a  new  sense  of  their  fellowship  with  each 
other;  with  a  spirit  of  solidarity  that  would  not  be  defeated; 
and  with  a  new  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  as  their  griev- 
ances were  not  individual  but  common,  their  hope  for  the 
future  lay  not  in  separate  but  in  common  action. 


48       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

"  The  one  great  proof  that  the  strikers  have  learned  the  les- 
son of  solidarity  and  unity  of  action  lies  in  the  fact  that  meet- 
ings independent  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  or  the  Garment 
Workers  Union  have  been  held  twice  weekly  since  the  ending 
of  the  strike.  The  meetings  have  been  well  attended,  the  halls 
being  just  as  full  as  at  any  time  of  the  strike.  The  tailors  are 
studying  and  when  another  strike  does  come  another  story  will 
be  written." 

It  is  clear  from  this  statement  that  one  of  the  important 
lessons  the  strike  taught  the  workers  was  how  far  it  was  safe 
to  entrust  their  hopes  to  their  past  leaders.  Thus  in  the 
very  failure  of  this  strike  can  be  seen,  in  the  light  of  the  later 
events,  the  signs  of  future  success  and  of  the  final  break 
in  1914. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION 

The  agreement  that  was  signed  on  January  14,  1911,  be- 
tween the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  and  the  Joint 
Board  of  its  employees  was  a  simple  document.  But  it 
marked  the  beginning  of  a  period  of  uninterrupted  peace 
between  the  company  and  its  organized  employees,  undis- 
turbed by  the  industrial  storms  that  again  and  again  swept 
over  the  Chicago  clothing  market  in  the  next  eight  years. 

The  importance  of  the  agreement  to  the  workers  lay  pri- 
marily in  two  results  that  it  accomplished.  First,  through 
the  recognition  and  strengthening  of  the  organized  workers 
of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  the  great  campaigns  for  the 
organization  of  the  rest  of  the  market  were  made  possible. 
The  spirit  of  the  unorganized  workers  was  maintained  and 
strengthened  with  the  help  of  the  organized  until  the  final 
triumph  of  1919.  Secondly,  the  agreement  of  1911  was  the 
nucleus  out  of  which  has  developed  the  present  successful 
agreement,  with  its  elaborate  system  for  the  arbitration  and 
adjustment  of  labor  problems  and  for  the  preservation  of 
industrial  law  and  order.  Throughout  the  history  of  this 
agreement  the  development  of  the  power  and  strength  of  the 
organized  workers  can  be  measured  by  the  changes  made  in 
the  agreement.  With  the  growth  of  that  power  can  be  traced 
also  the  development  of  the  intricate  machinery  established 
under  the  agreement  and  of  the  code  of  industrial  law  that 
now  governs  the  relations  between  the  union  and  the  firm. 

The  text  of  the  first  agreement,  which  ended  the  strike  of 
1910,  outlines  briefly  the  conditions  for  the  return  of  the 
strikers  : 

"  First :  All  the  former  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  who  are  now  on  strike  shall  be  taken  back  and  shall  return 
to  work  within  10  days  from  the  date  hereof. 

"  Second :  There  shall  be  no  discrimination  of  any  kind 
whatsoever  against  any  of  the  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner 


50       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

and  Marx,  because  they  are  or  they  are  not  members  of  th^ 
United  Garment  Workers  of  America. 

*'  Third :  An  arbitration  committee,  consisting  of  three 
members,  shall  be  appointed.  Within  three  days  from  the  date 
thereof  the  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  shall  select 
one  member  thereof ;  within  three  days  thereafter  Hart,  Schaff- 
ner and  Marx  shall  select  one  member  thereof ;  and  the  two  mem- 
bers thus  selected  shall  immediately  proceed  to  select  the  third 
member  of  such  committee. 

"  Fourth:  Subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  agreement,  said 
arbitration  committee  shall  take  up,  consider,  and  adjust  what-j 
ever  grievances,  if  any,  the  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  who  are  now  on  strike  shall  have  and  shall  fix  a  method  for 
the  settlement  of  grievances,  if  any,  in  the  future.  The  finding 
of  the  said  committee  or  a  majority  thereof,  shall  be  binding  on 
both  parties." 

Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  at  the  time  of  the  signing  of 
tliis  agreement  were  employing  about  6,000  workers,  men, 
women  and  girls,  who  were  represented  by  a  Joint  Board, 
composed  of  delegates  from  local  miions  of  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  and  three  delegates  from  the  Women's  Trade 
Union  League.  Under  the  third  clause  of  the  agreement, 
each  side  selected  one  arbitrator,  the  Joint  Board  of  the 
local  unions  appointing  Mr.  Clarence  Darrow  as  their  arbi- 
trator and  the  company,  Mr.  Carl  Meyer.  These  two  then 
met  to  select  jointly  the  third  arbitrator.  Dean  Wigmore 
of  Northwestern  University  Law  School  was  agreed  on,  but 
was  unable  to  serve,  and  the  two  arbitrators  could  not  agree 
on  another  third  member  at  that  time.  It  was;  finally  decided 
that  the  two  arbitrators  should,  for  the  time  being,  act 
alone  as  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  Working  under  this 
arrangement,  on  March  13,  1911,  the  arbitrators  made  a  de- 
cision of  the  utmost  importance,  which  became  in  practice  a 
part  of  the  agreement.  This  decision  provided  briefly  for  the 
following:  (1)  sanitary  and  health  conditions,  including 
proper  ventilation,  and  at  least  three-quarters  of  an  hour  for 
dinner;  (2)  so  far  as  practicable  equal  division  of  work 
among  all  the  workers  in  slack  seasons;  (3)  the  establish- 
ment by  the  company  of  some  method  of  handling  future 
grievances  "  through  some  person  or  persons  in  its  employ; 


Clarence  DarroAV 


William  O.  Thompson 


Representatives  of  the  Union  on  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Board  of 

Arbitration 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        51 

and  any  employee,  either  by  himself  or  by  any  individual 
fellow-worker,  shall  have  the  right  to  present  any  grievance 
at  any  reasonable  time,  and  such  grievance  shall  be  promptly 
considered  by  the  person  or  persons  appointed  by  said  firm, 
and  in  case  such  grievance  shall  not  be  adjusted,  the  person 
feehng  himself  so  aggrieved  shall  have  the  right  to  apply  to 
some  member  of  said  firm  for  the  adjustment  of  such  griev- 
ance, and  in  case  the  same  shall  not  then  be  adjusted,  such 
grievance  may  be  presented  to  Clarence  Darrow  and  Carl 
Meyer,  who  shall  be  constituted  as  a  permanent  board  of 
arbitration  to  settle  any  questions  that  may  arise  between 
any  of  the  employees  of  said  firm  and  said  firm  for  the  term 
of  two  years  from  April  1,  1911,  during  which  time  these 
findings  shall  be  in  full  force  ";  (4)  wage  increases  and  ad- 
justments as  follows:  a  general  minimum  for  all  workers  of 
$5  a  week;  a  minimum  for  males  over  17  of  $6  and  over  18 
of  $8,  and  a  uniform  increase  of  10  per  cent,  to  all  workers; 
(5)  the  establishment  of  the  54-hour  week,  and  the  payment 
for  overtime  work  at  the  rate  of  time  and  a  half. 

In  accordance  with  the  clause  of  the  decision  providing  for 
the  establishment  by  the  company  of  some  means  of  handling 
future  grievances,  the  Labor  Complaint  Department  was 
immediately  established  by  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  with 
Professor  Earl  Dean  Howard  as  its  chief.  The  duties  of 
the  department,  as  described  by  Mr.  Howard  in  his  testimony 
before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission  of  1914  and  in 
other  statements,  were  to  maintain  a  system  for  the  prompt 
discovery  and  investigation  of  any  abuses  or  complaints  that 
might  arise  among  the  employees;  to  recommend  measures 
for  the  ehmination  of  the  sources  of  complaint ;  to  represent 
the  company  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  (or  Trade 
Board  later) ;  to  negotiate  with  the  business  agents  of  the 
unions ;  to  take  general  charge  of  employment,  discipline  and 
discharge,  and  of  welfare  work.  The  firm  believed  that  the 
main  difficulty  in  the  past  had  been  the  lack  of  contact  and 
lack  of  means  of  presenting  grievances  with  any  expectation 
of  their  being  satisfactorily  handled.     The  establishment  of 


52       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  Labor  Complaint  Department  was  an  attempt  to  meet 
this  need. 

Previous  to  the  1910  strike  the  industry  had  been  noted 
for  the  prevalence  of  small  section  or  shop  strikes  and  so 
habitual  had  these  become  that  they  were  taken  as  a  matter 
of  course  and  were  thought  to  be  inherent  in  the  industry 
itself.  Stoppages  were  simply  necessary  evils  and  there  was 
no  use  in  trying  to  eliminate  them.  During  the  first  year  of 
the  agreement  little  progress  was  made  in  the  elimination 
of  these  strikes.  Mr.  Howard  says  that  for  a  while  they 
were  practically  as  frequent  and  as  bitter  as  before  the  strike, 
despite  all  his  efforts. 

"  I  used  to  go  about  in  the  shops  whenever  there  was  a  strike 
and  make  a  speech  to  them  and  describe  the  agreement.  Mr. 
Hillman  used  to  do  so,  too,  and  we  really  had  to  instruct  the 
people  that  this  meant  a  new  way  of  adjusting  grievances.  The 
old  way  was  the  only  way  they  knew." 

Until  September,  1911,  when  they  first  came  to  be  regarded 
as  serious  offenses,  sudden  stoppages  occurred  almost  every 
week.  There  was  as  yet  no  general  understanding  of  the 
agreement  or  of  the  means  afforded  by  the  agreement  for 
other  methods  of  settling  grievances  than  striking. 

Friction  and  misunderstandings  continued  during  this  first 
year  not  through  lack  of  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Labor  De- 
partment, but  because  the  machinery  at  its  disposal  was  not 
adequate  for  its  needs.  The  Labor  Complaint  Department, 
during  the  first  years  of  its  existence,  handled  nearly  800 
complaints.  No  records  were  kept  of  the  disposition  of  these 
cases,  but  an  analysis  of  the  complaints  shows  the  chief 
sources  of  irritation  to  have  been  inequality  of  piece  prices, 
varying  quality  of  work  demanded,  abuse  of  foreman's  power 
of  discharge,  lack  of  a  practical  and  easy  method  of  present- 
ing grievances,  recurrence  of  small  strikes  resulting  in  bad 
feeling,  and  lack  of  a  method  for  the  division  of  work  in  slack 
seasons.  Problems  as  serious  as  these  would  have  taxed  even 
the  best  equipped  system  at  that  time,  for  to  neither  side 
had  the  significance  and  possibilities  of  the  agreement  be- 
come as  yet  clear.    But  in  addition  to  the  complexity  of  these 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        53 

complaints,  the  Department  as  constituted  could  not  pos- 
sibly handle  such  a  mass  of  problems  speedily  and  satisfac- 
torily without  more  time,  more  experience  and  a  clearer 
definition  of  its  powers  and  limitations.  The  failure  of  the 
Labor  Department  to  handle  these  matters  promptly  as  they 
arose  resulted  in  the  swamping  of  the  arbitrators  with  a 
multitude  of  unnecessary  detail,  which  theoretically  should 
have  been  disposed  of  by  the  Labor  Department. 

The  complaints  that  were  thus  presented  to  the  Arbitra- 
tion Board  were  so  numerous  and  so  varied  that  in  point  of 
time  alone  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  Arbitra- 
tion Board  to  handle  them,  while  the  confusion  that  arose 
in  presenting  cases  through  the  Labor  Complaint  Depart- 
ment occasioned  even  more  delay.  But  in  addition  to  the 
delay  involved  in  this  procedure  these  cases  required  an  inti- 
mate and  technical  knowledge  of  the  industry  in  all  its  parts. 
It  was  obviously  impossible  to  expect  a  Board  of  three,  or- 
ganized for  the  arbitration  of  fairly  general  principles  of 
conduct  and  relations,  to  have  at  its  command  either  the 
time  or  the  technical  knowledge  that  were  needed.  During 
the  first  year  the  arbitrators  met  more  than  fifty  times.  A 
great  many  oral  and  only  twenty  written  decisions  were 
made.  Lack  of  means  to  enforce  the  decisions  or  to  make 
them  known  to  the  parties  often  caused  injustice,  and  the 
failure  to  make  decisions  promptly  enough  produced  serious 
friction.  It  was  increasingly  evident  that  the  system  was  not 
practicable  as  then  constituted  and  that  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration could  not  handle  promptly  and  justly  both  the  tech- 
nical questions  and  the  matters  of  principle  that  were  brought 
before  it. 

Many  of  the  difficulties  and  injustices  that  arose  under  this 
system  were  involved  in  the  process  of  price-making.  Under 
a  decision  of  the  arbitrators  the  company  issued  complete 
specifications  for  all  operations  and  a  full  statement  of  defi- 
nitions and  processes.  They  established  piece  prices  for 
these  operations  with  the  approval  of  the  arbitrators,  subject 
to  change  only  by  the  consent  of  the  arbitrators,  as  provided 


54       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

in  the  decision.  In  practice  the  effect  of  these  specifications 
was  frequently  to  lower  the  earning  capacity  of  the  workers. 
In  such  cases  the  proper  procedure  was  for  the  complainant 
to  formulate  a  grievance  and  to  present  it  to  the  Labor  Com- 
plaint Department  for  adjustment.  If  no  satisfactory  set- 
tlement could  be  reached  (which  was  usually  the  case) ,  the 
complaint  went  to  the  arbitrators,  who  would  generally  de- 
cide in  effect  to  give  an  increase  in  prices  so  as  to  maintain 
former  earnings.  But  by  the  time  these  decisions  came  out 
the  workers  in  question  would  have  been  working  at  the  old 
rates  and  the  additional  problem  would  have  been  raised  as 
to  when  the  new  rates  had  become  effective.  In  the  meantime 
new  specifications  might  be  drawn  up  by  the  company  which 
would  practically  nullify  whatever  adjustment  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  had  made. 

Discontent  grew  so  bitter  that  the  employees  and  arbitra- 
tors finally  informed  the  company  that  there  was  danger  of 
serious  trouble  unless  some  fundamental  readjustments  were 
made.  As  a  result  a  preliminary  conference  was  arranged 
for  March,  1912.  At  this  conference  the  employees  were 
represented  by  Mrs.  Raymond  Robins  of  the  Women's 
Trade  Union  League,  John  Fitzpatrick  of  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor,  W.  O.  Thompson  and  Henry  M.  Ash- 
ton,  and  the  firm  Avas  represented  by  Joseph  Schaffner,  Carl 
Meyer,  E.  D.  Howard  and  Milton  A.  Strauss.  This  infor- 
mal conference  reached  on  April  1  an  agreement  providing 
for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  five,  two  representing 
each  side  and  the  fifth  chosen  by  the  four  other  members,  for 
the  following  purposes: 

(1)  To  create  a  board  for  the  adjusting  and  fixing  of 
prices  when  necessary,  and  the  adjusting  of  any  other  mat- 
ters that  might  arise  in  dispute  between  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  and  their  employees,  the  neutral  member  of  the  board 
to  be  appointed  by  the  committee. 

(2)  To  formulate  rules  for  the  guidance  of  this  board, 
such  rules  to  be  binding  during  the  continuance  of  the  1911 
agreement,  until  April  1,  1913. 


Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members 
Women's  Local  275 


Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members  Lithuanian 
Coat  Makers  Local  269 


■fil    I 

jli 

111     i  ^H^H^ 
1^     '"^       SH 

OhH/" 

■imBHBMBil^Hil^lsHII^  ■^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hj^^^-^^r  T'^^KKS^ 

t  \ 

Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members  Sewing 
Machine  Adjusters  Local  272 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        55 

The  Committee's  powers  and  limitations  were  defined  in 
the  following  clauses  of  the  agreement : 

"  It  is  expressly  agreed  upon  that  the  agreement  made  on 
January  14<  and  the  decision  of  Clarence  Darrow  and  Carl 
Meyer,  the  arbitrators  appointed  under  said  agreement,  which 
decision  is  dated  March  13,  1911,  shall  remain  in  all  respects 
in  full  force  and  eifect,  and  neither  said  committee  nor  said 
board  so  appointed  shall  have  any  right  to  take  up  any  question 
of  increasing  wages  or  of  providing  for  any  sort  of  what  is 
commonly  termed  a  closed  shop,  or  to  make  any  rules  or  regu- 
lations in  violation  of  or  inconsistent  with  any  of  the  provisions 
of  said  agreement  of  January  14,  1911,  or  said  decision  of 
March  13,  1911. 

"  Said  board  when  appointed  shall  be  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  acting  as  an  original  tribunal,  and  an  appeal  shall  always 
lie  to  the  arbitration  board  created  by  the  said  agreements  from 
the  decisions  of  said  board." 

The  committee  of  five  that  was  finally  appointed  was  com- 
posed of  E.  D.  Howard  and  Carl  Meyer  for  the  company; 
W.  O.  Thompson  and  Sidney  Hillman  for  the  employees, 
and  Charles  H.  Winslow  as  the  fifth  and  neutral  member. 
This  committee  made  its  report,  creating  the  Trade  Board 
and  the  rules  of  procedure  for  its  guidance  as  provided  by 
the  agreement.  Following  a  preamble  which  summarized 
briefly  the  history  of  the  relations  between  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx  and  their  employees  and  the  facts  that  led  to  the 
appointment  of  the  committee  for  establishing  the  Trade 
Board,  the  more  important  provisions  of  the  report  are  as 
follows : 

Organization  and  Membership. 

The  Trade  Board  shall  consist  of  11  members  with  practical 
experience  in  the  trade,  if  possible,  five  to  be  chosen  by  each 
side.  All  but  the  Chairman  must  be  employees  of  Hart,  Schaff- 
ner and  Marx.  Any  member  of  the  Board  may  be  removed 
and  replaced  by  the  power  appointing  him.  Five  alternates 
are  to  be  appointed  by  each  side  in  case  of  absences,  to  avoid 
delays.  Weekly  meetings  of  the  Board  are  to  be  held  and  spe- 
cial meetings  may  be  called  with  24  hours'  notice.  Both  sides 
must  have  equal  voting  power  in  all  questions  arising  before  the 
Board.  The  neutral  member  of  the  Board  will  be  appointed 
by  the  Committee  of  5  and  will  hold  office  until  the  expiration 


56       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  the  original  agreement  and  will  act  as  Chairman  of  the 
Board.  The  duties  of  the  Chairman  shall  be  to  preside  at  all 
meetings,  to  certify  to  all  decisions  and  proceedings  of  the  board, 
to  maintain  order  and  expedite  the  business  before  the  board  by 
limiting  discussion  or  stopping  irrelevant  debate,  and  to  con- 
duct the  examination  of  witnesses  and  to  instruct  deputies,  and, 
upon  request,  to  grant  stay  of  the  orders  of  the  board,  at  his 
discretion,  pending  appeal. 

Jurisdiction  of  Board. 

Said  Board  is  to  have  original  jurisdiction  of  all  matters 
arising  under  the  agreement  of  January  14,  1911,  and  the  deci- 
sion thereunder  of  Messrs.  Darrow  and  Meyer,  of  March  13, 
1911. 

Representatives  of  both  sides  shall  appoint  deputies  for  each 
branch  of  the  trade  allowing  as  much  freedom  as  possible  in 
the  formation  of  rules  for  their  guidance.  One  of  the  deputies 
shall  be  called  "  Chief  Deputy,"  and  shall  keep  the  records,  be 
responsible  for  placing  matters  on  the  calendar  for  the  Trade 
Board,  and  in  general  be  responsible  for  the  orderly  carrying  on 
of  affairs  of  the  Trade  Board  on  behalf  of  his  party.  Deputies 
are  to  do  whatever  work  is  assigned  them  by  the  Trade  Board, 
take  up  grievances  and  investigate  them  promptly  with  depu- 
ties of  the  other  side,  and  report  decisions  in  writing  if  thej- 
come  to  agreement  without  the  aid  of  the  Board. 

Their  decisions  will  be  binding  unless  appeal  is  made  to  the 
Trade  Board  within  three  days.  If  they  fail  to  agree,  the  case 
will  go  to  the  Trade  Board,  which  will  hear  argument  on  both 
sides,  and  decide. 

Deputies  must  be  either  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  or  connected  with  the  Joint  Board  of  Garment  Workers 
of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx. 

Appeal,  to  Arbitration  Board. 

In  case  either  party  should  desire  to  appeal  from  any  decision 
of  the  Trade  Board,  or  from  any  change  of  these  rules  by  the 
Trade  Board  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  they  shall  have  the 
right  to  do  so  upon  filing  a  notice  in  writing  with  the  Trade 
Board  of  such  intention  within  30  days  from  the  date  of  the 
decision,  and  the  said  Trade  Board  shall  then  refer  said  matter 
to  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  where  the  same  shall  be  given  an 
early  hearing  by  a  full  board  of  three  members. 

General  rules  to  expedite  the  practical  work  of  the  Trade 
Board  provide  methods  for  speedy  attention  to  all  griev- 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        57 


ances ;  enforcement  of  decisions  of  the  deputies  or  the  Trade 
Board ;  immediate  investigation  of  stoppages ;  appeal  to  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  in  case  of  refusal  to  obey  decisions; 
submission  of  new  specifications  to  the  Trade  Board  when 
price  changes  are  contemplated ;  conforming  of  price  changes 
to  changes  in  work,  and  the  basing  of  new  prices  as  far  as 
possible  on  old ;  and  notification  of  employees  against  whom 
complaints  are  brought,  either  at  or  before  the  time  of  enter- 
ing complaint,  so  that  they  may  notify  their  deputies.  For 
the  first  time  it  is  clearly  recognized  that  stoppages  are  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  the  agreement : 

"  If  such  stoppage  shall  occur  because  the  person  in  charge 
of  the  shop  shall  have  refused  to  allow  the  people  to  continue, 
work,  he  shall  be  ordered  to  immediately  give  work  to  the  peo- 
ple, or  in  case  the  employees  have  stopped  work,  the  deputies 
shall  order  the  people  to  immediately  return  to  work,  and  in 
case  they  fail  to  return  to  work  within  an  hour  from  such  time 
such  people  shall  be  considered  as  having  left  the  employ  of  the 
corporation,  and  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  these 
rules." 

Except  for  a  change  later  made  in  the  numbers  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Trade  Board  from  11  to  5,  and  other  changes  of 
detail  this  is  substantially  the  constitution  of  the  Trade 
Board  as  it  has  operated  since  1912.  The  first  officers  of 
the  Trade  Board  were  as  follows: 

Chairman — Mr.  James  Mullenbach. 

Workers'  Representatives :  Smith,  Marimpietri,  Kaminsky, 
Spitzer,  Hirsch,  Feinberg,  Goldenstein,  Taback. 

Company  Representatives :  Larson,  Weinberg,  Masche,  Gut- 
man,  Duske,  Leis. 

Workers'  Deputies:  Hillman  (Chief),  representing  the  coat 
tailors ;  Levin,  the  cutters ;  Miss  Abramowitz,  the  vestmakers ; 
Rothbart,  the  pantmakers. 

Company  Deputies:     Howard,  Chief;  Campbell,  Assistant. 

Soon  after  the  adoption  of  this  agreement  it  became  clear 
that  the  original  Board  of  Arbitration  could  function  more 
effectively  in  its  new  capacity  as  a  Board  for  the  determina- 
tion of  general  principles  if  the  third  arbitrator  were  chosen. 
Accordingly  Mr.  J.  E.  Williams  was  chosen  Chairman  of  the 


ft 


¥' 


r 


58       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Board  of  Arbitration  in  December,  1912,  and  held  that  po- 
sition until  his  death  in  1919.  Immediately  after  his  appoint- 
ment as  Chairman  and  as  a  result  largely  of  his  intervention, 
several  cases  were  disposed  of  by  negotiation  without  de- 
cision of  the  Board.  This  method  of  settling  whatever  could 
be  settled  by  informal  arrangements  between  the  parties  or 
by  negotiation  has  always  been  held  by  both  sides  and  by 
the  Board  to  be  the  best  possible  method  of  adjusting  small 
differences,  once  the  principle  involved  has  been  clearly  estab- 
lished. The  work  of  the  deputies  under  the  Trade  Board 
was  calculated  to  further  this  policy,  whereby  small  or  de- 
tailed problems  can  be  adjusted  before  they  become  serious 
enough  to  be  real  grievances.  It  is  a  method  that  can  only 
be  practiced  where  there  is  a  permanent  organization  created 
for  that  purpose,  a  clearly  established  set  of  fundamental 
principles  mutually  agreed  upon,  and  a  maximum  amount 
of  faith  on  the  part  of  each  party  in  the  integrity  and  good 
sense  of  the  leaders  on  the  other  side.  The  adjustment  of 
grievances  through  the  work  of  the  deputies  was,  of  course, 
subject  to  review  by  the  Trade  Board  either  on  appeal  by 
either  party  or  where  the  deputies  failed  to  agree.  Their 
success  in  settling  cases  without  resort  to  the  Board  is  shown 
by  the  following  record  of  adjustments: 

From  April  1,  1912,  to  June,  1914,  the  deputies  adjusted 
1,178  cases,  or  84.1  per  cent,  of  the  total  number;  206  cases, 
or  14.7  per  cent,  were  decided  by  the  Trade  Board,  and  only 
17,  or  1.2  per  cent,  went  as  far  as  the  Board  of  Arbitration. 
The  disposition  of  the  cases  adjusted  by  the  deputies  in  the 
first  instance  are  not  recorded,  but  the  decisions  of  the  Trade 
Board  and  the  Board  of  Arbitration  are  completely  recorded, 
and  will  be  discussed  in  other  chapters. 

How  far  the  Trade  Board  succeeded  in  accomplishing  the 
purposes  for  which  it  was  created  is  indicated  in  the  statement 
by  Mr.  Winslow  in  a  bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics : 

"  In  the  main,  the  Trade  Board  has  served  its  purpose  *  •  • 
to  provide  a  tribunal  of  practical  men  working  in  the  industry, 
who  should  constitute  a  court  of  original  jurisdiction — a  court 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION 


59 


competent  to   give   more   prompt  and  equitable   service  than 
could  be  reasonably  required  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration." 

Hillman,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Federal  Industrial  Re- 
lations Commission,  said : 

"This  Trade  Board  was  created  so  that  it  was  really  a  new 
method  of  adjusting  complaints — and  that  is  an  adjustment  by 
the  workers  themselves.  It  introduces  really  what  I  call  the 
new  principle  in  organization,  that  if  the  workers  are  to  be 
disciplined  for  any  violation  of  the  agreement,  they  themselves 
partly  should  be  the  judges." 

The  procedure  for  bringing  in  disputes  since  the  creation 
of  the  Trade  Board  has  been  as  follows:  complaint  is  filed 
with  the  Labor  Department,  the  two  deputies  of  the  Trade 
Board,  one  for  each  side,  are  informed  of  the  case,  they  con- 
duct a  joint  investigation  in  the  shop  and  try  to  adjust  the 
grievance.  If  they  fail  the  case  is  automatically  put  on  the 
Trade  Board  docket.  The  Trade  Board  then  hears  the  case, 
calls  witnesses,  and  either  makes  a  decision  or  sends  the  case 
back  to  the  deputies  with  instructions  or  recommendations. 
Gradually,  as  the  machinery  developed,  decisions  of  the 
Trade  Board  came  to  be  made  more  and  more  often  by  the 
deciding  vote  cast  by  the  fifth  member,  the  chairman.  Thus 
the  institution  of  the  "  Impartial  Chairman "  came  into 
existence.  The  making  of  piece  work  rates,  which  became 
one  of  the  functions  of  the  Trade  Board,  is  handled  by  a  rate 
committee  of  three,  one  representing  each  side,  and  the  third 
the  Chairman  of  the  Trade  Board.  In  practice,  however,  the 
actual  making  of  rates  is  usually  done  by  the  two  members 
of  the  committee  without  the  Chairman.  In  their  decisions 
they  are  guided  by  the  general  rules  agreed  upon  or  laid 
down  by  the  Board  (e.  g.,  changes  in  prices  must  correspond 
to  changes  in  work).  If  the  two  agree,  specifications  and 
rates  are  recorded  and  put  into  effect.  If  they  cannot  agree, 
the  full  committee  meets  and  makes  a  decision.  Appeal  may 
be  taken  from  this  decision  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  if 
necessary,  but  no  alterations  are  permitted  after  a  decision 
has  been  made  without  the  permission  of  the  committee,  or 
on  appeal,  permission  from  the  Arbitration  Board. 


I  ^-^ 


60       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Problems  or  disputes  involving  general  principles  not 
already  established  will  go  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
directly,  but  all  others  may  come  before  the  Trade  Board  as 
a  court  of  first  instance.  Some  idea  of  the  variety  of  the 
cases  handled  by  the  Trade  Board,  and  their  disposition  can 
be  seen  from  the  following  table : 

NUMBER  OF  DECISIONS  OF  TRADE  BOARD  IN  FAVOR  OF  UNION 
AND  IN  FAVOR  OF  COMPANY,  BY  NATURE  OF  GRIEVANCE, 
MAY  8,  1912,  TO  JUNE  1,  1914. 

Decisions       Decisions 
No.  of  in  favor         in  favor 

Grievance  cases  filed       of  union    of  Company 

Wrongful  discharge 75 

Additional  work,  or  prices  too  low . .    42 

Disputes  in  price  making 31 

Reduction  of  rates  of  cutters 18 

Discrimination  against  individuals  or  sections  15 

Overcrowded  sections  14 

Preferring  non-union  help 7 

Other  grievances   21 

Total  223 


24 

34 

12 

5 

4 

3 

6 

5 

5 

4 

2 

3 

1 

5 

2 

61 


54 


r 


One  of  the  most  important  contributions  of  this  permanent 
adjustment  machinery  is  the  development  of  a  working  code 
of  industrial  law.  The  agreement  itself  is  the  constitution  or 
fundamental  law,  while  the  decisions  and  precedents  they 
establish  are  analogous  to  the  common  law.  Thus  these  de- 
cisions and  understandings  have  in  time  developed  into  a 
code  of  rules  and  procedure  that  all  who  work  under  the 
system  must  understand  and  be  able  to  apply.  The  deputies 
and  representatives  of  both  sides  must  be  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  law  established,  in  order  that  they  may  adjust  as 
many  disputes  as  possible  "  out  of  court  "  fairly  and  equit- 
ably, and  in  the  spirit  of  the  agreement.  E.  D.  Howard,  in 
his  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission, 
described  his  own  experience  with  this  development : 

"  This  (organic  growth  of  law)  grows  up  through  precedent 
established  by  various  bodies  and  by  people  who  have  an  op- 
portunity to  lay  down  policies.  These  precedents  become  law. 
At  first,  when  you  have  a*  condition  of  no  government,  or  des- 
potism, and  you  are  trying  to  change  over  to  a  republican  forie 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        61 

of  government,  which  this  is,  you  must  have  all  these  things 
worked  out,  you  must  have  the  constitution  worked  out,  and 
you  must  have  the  fundamental  law  laid  down,  and  you  must 
have  interpretations  of  it,  and  legislation  *  *  *  At  first 
everything  came  up  with  us,  all  sorts  of  questions.  Mr.  Hill- 
man  and  I  would  try  to  settle  them  ourselves.  Of  course,  we 
could  not,  in  a  good  many  cases,  and  we  by  mutual  agreement 
would  say,  *  Let  us  have  this  thing  settled ;  let  us  have  this 
precedent  established ;  let  us  have  laws  and  legislation  '  and  we 
would  refer  it  to  a  board  of  arbitration,  and  the  board  of  ar- 
bitration gradually  guided  us,  and  has  gradually  enacted  what 
expresses  to  a  large  number  the  ideas  of  the  principles  of  justice 
in  this  industry,  and  since  we  have  had  this  we  have  been  able 
to   settle  practically   all  grievances." 

Professor  Tufts  attributes  the  steady  and  consistent 
growth  of  these  principles  and  precedents  in  part  to  the 
character  and  permanence  of  the  personnel  of  the  boards, 
which  have  made  possible  the  development  of  a  coherent  and 
unified  policy.  Mr.  Williams  was  Chairman  of  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  for  seven  years,  and  Mr.  Mullenbach  of  the 
Trade  Board  since  1912.  Another  factor  was  the  practice 
of  having  the  parties  immediately  concerned  represented  in 
cases  by  their  deputies  or  labor  managers,  who  are  naturally 
more  expert  in  presenting  their  cases  and  better  acquainted 
with  the  detailed  administration  of  the  agreement.  All  this 
development  of  principles  as  the  Trade  Board  became  an 
established  institution  was  of  course  not  a  matter  of  one  or 
two  years,  but  a  long  and  slow  matter  of  experiment  and 
education  that  is  still  in  the  process  of  development.  In  the 
meantime,  however,  other  important  changes  were  taking 
place  in  the  collective  agreement  and  in  the  organization  of 
the  workers  themselves. 

The  original  agreement  expired  April  1,  1913,  and  as  that 
date  approached  the  situation  was  seen  to  be  serious.  Two 
months  before  the  date  of  expiration  the  workers  presented 
the  following  demands  as  a  condition  of  the  renewal  of  the 
agreement : 

1)  All  workers  must  be  members  in  good  standing  of  the 
United  Garment  Workers  and  new  employees  must  join  the 
union  within  two  weeks  after  employment. 


62       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

2)  The  fifty-hour  week  for  tailors  and  the  forty-eight-hour 
week  for  cutters  and  trimmers. 

3)  Tailors:  overtime  must  be  paid  for  at  the  rate  of  time 
and  a  half;  no  overtime  on  Saturdays,  Sundays  or  holidays ;  $16 
minimum  weekly  wage;  increases  to  be  arbitrated;  price  com- 
mittee to  be  created  to  determine  prices  and  changes  according 
to  certain  rulings. 

4)  Continuation  of  present  Board  of  Arbitration  during  life 
of  agreement. 

6)   $9  a  week  minimum  for  all  workers. 

6)  No  worker  may  be  discharged  without  sufficient  cause. 

7)  Overcrowding  is  considered  a  grievance. 

8)  All  privileges  of  old  agreement  not  covered  here  to  con- 
tinue as  before. 

9)  For  other  departments,  various  wage  and  rate  adjust- 
ments. 

By  an  overwhelming  majority  the  workers  declared  that  if 
their  demand  for  the  union  shop  were  not  granted,  they  would 
strike.  The  Company  objected  on  the  ground  that  the  em- 
ployes were  not  sufficiently  experienced  to  hold  such  power. 
This  was,  of  course,  the  most  important  demand  of  the  work- 
ers and  both  sides  seemed  determined  not  to  yield.  No  agree- 
ment appeared  possible  and  the  workers  prepared  to  strike 
on  April  1st.  It  was  a  serious  crisis,  all  negotiations  ceased, 
and  the  arbitrators  left  the  city.  The  Chairman  of  the  Board, 
Mr.  WilHams,  arranged  with  the  Company  for  an  extension 
of  the  period  of  the  old  agreement  to  May  13,  1913,  to  give 
time  for  more  negotiations  and  thus  possibly  avert  a  break; 
but  the  workers  refused  to  accept  the  extension.  Finally, 
one  week  before  the  date  of  expiration.  Chairman  Williams 
and  the  Chief  Deputies  (Hillman  and  Howard)  presented 
to  both  sides  a  tentative  agreement  providing  for  a  prefer- 
ential union  shop,  leaving  practically  all  other  issues  in  the 
hands  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  and  providing  for  the 
continuation  of  the  old  agreement  until  another  agreement 
could  be  reached. 

On  March  28th  the  Chairman  issued  the  following  state- 
ment of  his  interpretation  of  the  agreement,  in  order  that 
both  sides  might  understand  clearly  what  was  involved : 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        68 

"  In  facing  the  possibility  of  unsettled  questions  being  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration,  I  find  my  present  state  of  mind  to  be  this : 

"  That,  in  addition  to  maintaining  what  has  been  gained  in 
the  present  agreement,  the  chief  interest  of  the  employees  cen- 
ters around  the  question  of  an  increased  efficiency  of  organiza- 
tion, which  requires  a  recognition  of  the  need  for  such  a  sub- 
stantial degree  of  preference  as  will  tend  to  improve  that  effi- 
ciency, while  the  chief  interest  of  the  employers  centers  around 
the  question  of  efficiency  in  business  competition,  which  neces- 
sarily includes  a  recognition  and  consideration  of  cost  and 
quality  of  production,  with  the  shop  cooperation  and  discipline 
necessary  to  secure  it. 

"  I  find  my  mind  still  open  and  ready  to  receive  and  be  in- 
fluenced by  any  light  that  may  be  offered  by  either  side,  and 
this  statement  is  given  to  show,  so  far  as  I  understand  myself, 
what  my  present  attitude  is  on  the  questions  which  most  need 
to  be  considered  and  reconciled." 

On  March  29, 1913,  the  agreement  was  adopted  and  signed 
by  representatives  of  the  firm,  of  the  Joint  Board  of  the 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  local  unions,  the  Central  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  and  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League.  The 
signing  of  this  agreement  was  unquestionably  one  of  the  most 
important  gains  won  so  far  by  the  organized  clothing  work- 
ers of  Chicago. 

Under  the  terms  of  this  agreement,  known  as  the  Prefer- 
ential Shop  Agreement,  all  matters  in  dispute,  except  the 
question  of  preference,  were  left  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration. 
The  rest  of  the  1913  agreement  was  really  issued  therefore  in 
the  form  of  a  Ruling  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  effective 
from  May  1,  1913,  to  May  1,  1916.  The  Ruling  incorpo- 
rated the  agreement  for  preference  of  March  29th ;  provided 
an  opportunity  for  renewal  of  the  agreement  before  the  time 
of  expiration  in  1916;  provided  for  the  continuation  of  the 
Trade  and  Arbitration  Boards;  enlarged  the  powers  of  the 
latter  by  the  so-called  emergency  clause;  reduced  hours  of 
work  in  the  tailor  shops  from  54  to  52 ;  retained  the  minimum 
wage  scale  with  certain  exceptions;  provided  for  pay  at  the 
rate  of  time  and  a  half  for  overtime  work  and  no  overtime 
on  Sundays  or  legal  holidays;  left  the  power  of  discharge 
and  discipline  with  the  company,  subject  to  review;  ordered 


64       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  maintenance  as  far  as  possible  of  a  balance  of  work- 
men in  the  sections  in  order  to  keep  different  departments 
at  work,  complaints  in  regard  to  this  being  subject  to 
review  by  the  Trade  Board ;  provided  for  the  replacement  of 
workers  displaced  by  abolished  sections  in  work  as  nearly  as 
possible  like  their  old  work;  and  retained  in  full  force  those 
parts  of  the  old  agreement  not  in  conflict  with  this,  or 
obsolete. 

The  first  decision  prescribing  the  manner  of  applying  the 
principle  of  preference  was  made  on  August  30,  1913.  This 
4/ application  of  the  principle  of  preference  is  an  excellent 
example  of  the  building  up  of  a  code  or  body  of  practical 
law  by  the  decisions  of  the  Boards  which  interpret  and  apply 
general  principles.    The  gist  of  the  decision  was  as  follows: 

"  The  test  of  preference  is  that  it  must  strengthen  the  organi- 
zation, while  at  the  same  time  it  must  extend  a  *  reasonable  pref- 
erence '  to  old  employes,  and  maintain  the  efficiency  of  shop 
disciphne  *  *  *  .  The  Board  *  *  *  offers  the  following 
experimental  interpretation:  The  application  of  the  principle 
of  preference  made  herein  is  based  on  the  degree  of  unionization 
at  present  existing  in  the  shops  and  is  designed  to  prevent 
union  membership  from  falling  below  its  present  status,  and  by 
its  continued  operation  to  strengthen  the  organization  as  con- 
templated by  the  agreement." 

The  decision  then  proceeds  to  establish  classes  for  degrees 
of  unionization,  rules  for  preference  in  each  class  and  for 
promotion  of  sections  from  one  class  to  another,  for  slack 
season  reduction  in  working  force,  and  for  preference  in  hir- 
ing. Special  rules  were  made  later  for  the  cutters  and  trim- 
mers to  the  effect  that  workers  in  cutting  and  trimming  rooms 
shall  be  union  members  in  good  standing,  except  that  the 
company  may  employ  20  non-union  cutters  and  9  non-union 
trimmers,  this  being  less  than  5  per  cent,  of  the  number  em- 
ployed in  each  case.  In  conclusion,  Mr.  Williams  noted  cer- 
tain general  rules  in  regard  to  the  punishment  of  wilful  stop- 
pages or  any  other  violation  of  the  spirit  and  intention  of  the 
agreement.  This  decision  became  the  guide  for  future  appli- 
cations of  the  preferential  clause  of  the  agreement.  The 
strides  forward  that  the  union  had  made  since  1911  and  the 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION         65 

acceptance  of  the  position  that  the  organization  should  con- 
tinue to  gain  and  not  lose  strength,  are  clearly  recognized  in 
the  above  decision.  The  preferential  shop  did  in  practice  soon 
come  to  mean  the  union  shop,  for  with  the  increasing  degree 
of  unionization,  the  union  saw  to  it  that  its  members  were 
available  for  preference  when  jobs  were  open.  The  degree  of  ^ 
unionization  under  this  agreement  was  naturally  of  the  ut- 
most importance,  for  it  determined  the  class  of  the  sections 
for  purposes  of  preference,  and  in  March,  1914,  the  Labor 
Department  directed  the  foremen  to  take  a  census  of  unioni- 
zation. Three  months  later,  the  union  took  a  census  of  its 
members  through  the  shop  chairmen.  The  union  figures,  com- 
piled in  May,  show  a  considerably  larger  proportion  of  union 
men  than  were  shown  by  the  March  census.  The  percentage 
of  union  members  in  the  pants  shop  (the  lowest  percentage 
of  all  the  shops),  according  to  March  figures,  was  51,  and  in 
May,  77.6.  In  the  vest  makers'  section,  the  percentage  of 
union  members  was  89  according  to  the  March  figures  and 
96  in  May,  and  in  the  coat  makers  82  and  91.6  respectively. 
The  degree  of  unionization  of  cutters  and  trimmers  was  95% 
at  both  dates.  The  total  membership  of  the  union  calculated 
from  the  dues  collected  in  the  four  months  from  January  to 
May,  shows  an  increase  of  from  2,592  in  May,  1913,  to  8,906 
in  May,  1914,  or  344  per  cent. 

After  January,  1914,  new  groups  of  workers  (including 
ticket  sewers,  inspector  tailors,  and  apprentices)  who  were 
not  unionized  at  the  time  of  signing  the  agreement  in  March, 
1913,  were  brought  under  the  agreement,  due  to  their  subse- 
quent organization  by  the  union.  ^  . 

Another  provision  in  the  1913  agreement  that  was  of  great     w^ 
importance  in  the  development  of  the  strength  of  the  union 
was  the  clause  limiting  the  power  of  discharge  by  requiring 
that  a  sufficient  reason  be  shown  for  discharge  and  by  provid- 
ing for  appeal  in  the  case  of  those  believing  themselves  un-  I  t/I^ 
justly  discharged.                                                                                 ^     /  d 

The  development  of  the  position  and  function  of  the  shop  / 
chairman,  as  a  recognized  officer  of  the  Union,  came  largely 
during  the  life  of  this  agreement.    In  the  original  agreement 


H 


V 


66       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

there  was  no  mention  of  a  shop  chairman.  In  fact,  it  was 
specifically  provided  that  "  any  employe — may  present  a 
grievance  in  person  or  by  an  individual  fellow  worker."  The 
progress  and  status  of  the  Union  were  later  recognized  in  a 
ruling  to  the  effect  that  the  Joint  Board  might  designate 
any  fellow  employe  of  the  company  to  represent  them  before 
the  Arbitration  Board.  The  institution  was  thus  officially 
recognized  and  one  "  representative  "  was  selected  by  the 
cutters,  one  each  by  coat,  vest  and  pants  tailors,  and  one 
each  by  the  Polish  and  Lithuanian  workers.  Later,  the 
Board  interpreted  "  fellow  worker  "  to  be  the  official  repre- 
sentative of  the  Union,  the  shop  chairman,  and  still  later  the 
rights  and  powers  of  the  shop  chairman  were  defined  in  the 
Trade  Board  decisions  of  January  8,  1913,  and  September 
5, 1914: 

Januaey  8,  1918. 

"  Inasmuch  as  the  agreement  is  silent  on  the  matter  at  issue 
a  decision  must  rest  on  the  most  reasonable  interpretation  of 
the  intention  of  the  agreement  and  of  the  circumstances  of  shop 
operation. 

"  It  is  clearly  intended  and  declared  by  the  agreement  that 
an  employee  may  elect  to  present  a  grievance  by  a  fellow  worker 
rather  than  by  himself.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  an  employe 
may  bring  a  complaint  to  the  representative  of  the  firm  during 
working  hours.  But  under  the  agreement  he  may  choose  to 
make  such  complaint  by  a  fellow  worker  rather  than  by  him- 
self. In  this  case  the  agreement  confers  upon  the  fellow  worker 
all  of  the  rights  of  making  and  adjusting  the  complaint  that  it 
lodged  in  the  employe.  The  employe  is  entitled  to  place  his 
representative — the  individual  fellow-worker — in  full  possession 
of  the  facts  of  his  complaint.*'         \ 

Septembee  5,  1914. 

*'  In  the  present  case  the  question  centers  on  whether,  when 
an  employe  presents  a  complaint  to  an  individual  fellow  worker 
(shop  chairman)  the  individual  fellow  worker  has  the  right  to 
go  to  the  place  of  work  of  the  complainant  and  investigate  the 
complaint. 

"  On  this  point  the  board  rules  that  the  individual  worker 
(shop  chairman)  has  the  right  to  go  to  the  place  of  work  of  the 
employe,  where  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  get  full  possession 


en 


03 

X 


5  CJ 

o  ^ 

5  ^ 

CO  r^ 


^ 


^ 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        67 

of  the  facts  of  the  complaint.  He  may  then  take  it  up  with 
the  foreman,  but  the  foreman  is  not  required  to  discuss  the  com- 
plaint with  him  and  may  refer  him  to  the  other  channels  for  ad- 
justing complaints. 

****** 

"  The  shop  chairman  thus  became  the  representative  of  the 
workers  on  the  premises  of  the  firm.  Individual  workers  file 
their  grievances  with  the  chairman,  who  takes  the  matter  up 
with  the  shop  representative  of  the  firm.  If  the  chairman  of 
the  shop  does  not  succeed  in  adjusting  the  matter,  the  griev- 
ances are  brought  (by  the  shop  chairman)  to  the  attention  of 
the  respective  deputy.  The  deputy  then  takes  the  matter  up 
with  representative  of  the  labor  complaint  department  of  the 
firm." 

In  February,  1914,  representatives  of  5,000  workers  of  the 
firm  met  to  celebrate  the  success  of  their  relationship  after 
three  years  of  peace.  A  most  enthusiastic  reception  was 
given  to  Sidney  Hillman,  Chief  Deputy  for  the  workers.  By 
this  time,  the  agreement  was  recognized  as  a  great  achieve- 
ment not  only  by  those  directly  concerned  with  its  operation 
but  by  the  public  and  the  press  as  well. 

"  No  occasion  in  all  Chicago's  industrial  history,"  said  the 
Chicago  Daily  News,  "has  more  clearly  demonstrated  how  much 
more  practical  and  profitable  peace  is  than  war,  and  how  much 
more  essential  to  peace  and  prosperity  is  the  democracy  of 
good  will  than  any  kind  of  oligarchy  in  industry  *  *  *  This 
is  history  in  the  making  here  in  Chicago." 

In  the  fall  of  1914  came  the  break  from  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  and  the  appearance  of  the  new  organization 
which  later  became  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  of 
America.  Neither  this  great  change  in  the  organization  of 
the  workers,  nor  the  subsequent  general  strikes  of  1915-16 
that  tied  up  other  clothing  houses,  affected  the  agreement  of 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  with  its  organized  employees. 
Recognizing  the  facts  as  they  were,  the  firm  continued  the 
agreement  with  locals  of  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Work- 
ers that  it  had  begun  with  the  United  Garment  Workers,  and 
during  the  general  strike  in  the  fall  of  1915,  the  agreement 
continued  in  effect,  so  that- no  stoppages  occurred  among  the 
workers  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx. 


68       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

On  May  Day  of  1915,  A.  D.  Marimpietri,  head  of  the 
Joint  Board  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  workers  issued  a 
call  to  all  clothing  workers  to  celebrate  May  Day  as  the 
International  Labor  Day.  It  was  the  first  attempt  to  do  this 
and  the  response  was  beyond  all  expectations.  Over  10,000 
workers  paraded  through  the  clothing  district,  halting  out- 
side of  the  unorganized  shops.  The  effect  of  the  whole 
demonstration  on  the  unorganized  workers  was  tremendous. 
This  May  Day  parade,  aided  by  wide  publicity  in  the  daily 
press,  did  much  toward  laying  the  foundations  for  the  gen- 
eral strike  in  the  fall  of  1915. 

The  next  significant  event  in  the  history  of  the  collective 
agreement  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  came  when  the 
agreement  of  1913  was  to  expire  in  1916.  The  great  figure 
of  the  year  was  Mr.  J.  E.  Williams,  Chairman  of  the  Board 
of  Arbitration,  to  whose  efforts  the  renewal  of  the  agree- 
ment is  credited.  Mr.  Williams  himself  called  the  signing 
of  the  agreement  his  "  crowning  experience  "  as  a  labor 
adjuster.  In  discussing  the  character  of  the  union  in  con- 
nection with  the  renewal  of  this  agreement,  Mr.  Wilhams 
wrote: 

"  There  were  those  among  the  disbelievers  in  collective  bar- 
gaining who  foresaw  the  rupture  of  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  agreement  in  this  settlement.  There  were  those  who  be- 
lieved that  the  union,  after  its  five  years  of  solidarity,  would 
use  its  power  to  throttle  the  company  *  *  *  All  these  ex- 
pectations were  negatived  by  the  result.  Five  years  of  power, 
instead  of  making  the  union  arrogant,  has  only  given  it  a  sense 
of  restraint  and  responsibility.  It  has  proved  that,  guided  bv 
honest  and  intelligent  leaders,  the  workers  may  be  trusted  with 
power,  that  industrial  democracy  is  not  a  dream,  but  a  poten- 
tial reality." 

Not  that  there  were  no  serious  problems  at  the  moment 
to  complicate  the  situation;  serious  questions  of  wage  in- 
creases and  reductions  in  hours  presented  in  fact  great 
difficulty,  but  the  habit  of  collective  bargaining  that  had  been 
developed  in  the  course  of  the  previous  five  years  of  agree- 
ment, together  with  what  Mr.  Williams  called  "  The  Will  to 
Agree,"  prevailed  over  the  difficulties. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        69 

The  agreement  itself  was  the  result  of  negotiations  and 
conferences  over  demands  of  the  union,  which  included, 
among  other  things,  an  increase  in  wages,  the  48-hour  week, 
the  continuation  of  the  Trade  Board  and  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration as  now  constituted,  and  the  preferential  shop.  Two 
weeks  before  the  date  for  the  expiration  of  the  old  agree- 
ment, the  new  agreement  was  signed  for  another  period  of 
three  years,  from  May  1,  1916,  to  April  30,  1919.  On  the 
matter  of  hours  a  compromise  was  reached  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  49-hour  week.  At  the  date  of  signing  of 
the  agreement,  a  10  per  cent,  increase  was  granted,  which 
the  union,  instead  of  applying  horizontally,  distributed  in 
such  a  way  as  to  give  the  lowest  paid  workers  the  greatest 
benefit.  This  action  was  cited  by  Mr.  Williams  as  a  proof 
that  the  union  was  highly  developed,  capable  of  self-control, 
and  eminently  fit  to  hold  power. 

The  important  provisions  of  the  agreement  of  1916  are 
substantially  the  following: 

1.  The  old  agreement  and  decisions  based  thereon,  are  to      ^i  ^ 
remain  in  force  unless  modified  by  or  conflicting  with  this  agree- 
ment. 

2.  The  Board  of  Arbitration  is  to  have  full  and  final  juris- 
diction over  all  matters  under  this  agreement,  and  decisions  of  ^ 
the  Board  are  to  be  conclusive.     Members  of  the  Board  are  to     {  w^ 
be:     Mr.  Thompson,  Mr.  Meyer,  and  Mr.  Williams. 

3.  The  emergency  clause  of  the  1913  agreement  is  renewed. 

4.  The  Trade  Board  is  to  continue  as  before,  as  the  primary 
board  for  adjusting  grievances.  The  following  important  addi- 
tion was  made  to  the  rules  for  Deputies : 

"  The  Union  deputy  shall  have  access  to  any  shop  or  factory 
for  the  purpose  of  making  investigations  of  complaints ;  but  he 
shall  in  all  cases  be  accompanied  by  the  representative  of  the 
employer.  Provided  that  the  latter  may,  at  his  option,  waive 
his  right  to  accompany  him,  also  that  in  minor  matters  where 
convenience  or  expedition  may  be  served,  the  union  deputy  may 
call  out  the  shop  chairman  to  obtain  information  without  such 
waiver." 

5.  Shop  representatives  (or  shop  chairmen)  are  specificalh' 
mentioned  in  the  agreement  and  their  duties  and  powers  defined. 
The  shop  chairman  is  recognized  as  the  duly  accredited  repre- 
sentative of  the  Joint  Board,  having  charge  of  complaints  and 


70       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

organization  matters  in  the  shop.  He  is  to  receive  complaints 
and  have  opportunity  to  investigate  them,  he  may  collect  dues, 
etc.,  as  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with  shop  discipline  or 
efficiency ;  and  he  must  do  all  in  his  power  to  promote  good  wilt 
and  cooperation. 

6.  Detailed  procedure  is  outlined  for  the  handling,  investi- 
gation, and  presentation  of  grievances,  appeals,  and  for  the 
enforcement  of  decisions. 

7.  Piece  rate  committees  take  up  changes  in  all  cases  where 
changes  are  contemplated. 

8.  The  preferential  shop  clause  is  to  remain  effective,  as 
before. 

9.  The  limitations  on  discharge  of  workers  as  provided  in 
1913  agreement  remain  in  effect. 

10.  Stoppages  are  considered  serious  violations  of  the  spirit 
of  the  agreement. 

11.  Workers  are  not  to  be  detained  in  shops  when  there  is 
not  enough  work. 

12.  Employes  are  to  be  notified  of  complaints  against  them 
so  that  they  can  notify  a  deputy. 

13.  Lay  off  of  union  workers  is  only  permitted  in  case  of 
alternation  in  slack  times,  reorganization,  or  reduction  in  sec- 
tions, lawful  discipline,  etc. 

14.  During  slack  season  work  is  to  be  divided  equally,  as 
far  as  possible,  among  all  the  workers. 

16.  Absence  without  cause  or  notification  is  equivalent  to 
quitting. 

16.  Workers  displaced  by  abolishment  of  sections  are  to  bo 
replaced  in  work  as  much  like  the  old  work  as  possible. 

17.  Workers  absent  because  of  sickness  will  up  to  a  reason- 
able length  of  time  be  reinstated. 

18.  The  provisions  for  preference  require  that  the  union 
keep  its  door  open  to  the  admission  of  non-union  workers. 
Dues  and  initiation  fees  must  not  be  prohibitive. 

19.  All  provisions  of  the  old  agreement,  except  where  su- 
perseded or  conflicting  with  these,  are  to  remain  in  effect. 

From  1916  to  1919,  a  period  of  world  war  and  unsettled 
economic  conditions,  the  agreement  and  those  who  worked 
with  it  were  confronted  with  new  and  unexpected  problems. 
Fortunately  the  law  of  the  industry  proved  itself  elastic 
enough  to  meet  such  rapidly  changing  conditions.  In  Jan- 
uary, 1917,  2  per  cent,  was  added  to  the  wages  of  piece 
workers,  in  addition  to  the  10  per  cent,  granted  at  the  time 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  ARBITRATION        71 

of  signing  the  agreement.  On  May  1,  1917,  10  per  cent, 
increases  were  granted  by  decision  of  the  Board  and  this 
time  applied  horizontally.  The  following  year,  on  April 
22,  1918,  the  firm  granted  "  voluntary  "  increases,  the  result 
of  negotiations  between  the  union  and  the  firm,  effective  as 
of  May  2,  1918,  and  amounting  to  10  per  cent  and  15  per 
cent.  Like  other  gains  of  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx 
workers,  these  increases  were  of  great  help  in  stimulating 
the  campaign  to  organize  the  rest  of  the  Chicago  market, 
which  still  remained  non-imion. 

On  January  2,  1919,  after  seven  years  of  distinguished 
and  invaluable  service,  Mr.  J.  E.  Williams,  Chairman  of 
the  Board  of  Arbitration,  died.  James  H.  Tufts,  Professor 
of  Philosophy  in  the  University,  of  Chicago,  was  appointed 
to  succeed  him. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  BREAK  FROM  THE  UNITED  GARMENT 
WORKERS  IN  1914 

The  conduct  and  termination  of  the  1910  strike  resulted 
in  resentment  and  suspicious  hostility  of  the  clothing  work- 
ers toward  their  leaders  in  the  United  Garment  Workers  of 
America.  In  order  to  realize  the  intensity  of  their  feeling, 
and  the  accimiulated  sense  of  injustice  that  culminated  in 
the  fall  of  1914,  it  is  necessary  to  go  further  back  and  ex- 
amine briefly  the  history,  the  methods,  and  the  various  activi- 
ties of  the  clothing  workers'  organizations  prior  to  the  break 
in  the  ranks  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  in  1914. 

It  is  from  the  first  a  history  of  exploitation  and  of  chaos. 
It  is  clear  from  the  nature  of  the  industry  itself  and  the 
course  of  its  development,  that  organization  of  the  clothing 
workers  presented  a  highly  complicated  problem.  The  very 
conditions  that  made  organization  a  pressing  necessity 
tended  also  to  retard  its  progress  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
sweatshop  years  before  the  1910  strike.  The  immigrant 
workers;  the  highly  seasonal  nature  of  the  industry;  the 
prevalence  of  home  work,  with  all  the  special  problems  of 
organization  involved  in  that  system;  the  constant  division 
and  sub-division  of  operations,  setting  the  skilled  workers 
at  a  comparative  disadvantage;  all  these  helped  to  make 
the  clothing  industry  one  of  the  most  difficult  of  American 
industries  to  organize. 

From  the  beginning  many  sporadic  and  ineffective  at- 
tempts to  organize  the  clothing  workers  were  made  by  such 
unions  as  the  Journeymen  Tailors,  originally  formed  as  a 
benevolent  organization  only.  For  the  most  part  these  at- 
tempts were  either  too  feeble  to  be  effective,  or  disrupted  by 
jealousies  and  dissensions,  or  undermined  by  corruption  from 
within.  Of  these  early  organizations  the  Journeymen  Tail- 
ors were  the  most  powerful,  especially  in  New  York  City, 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  78 

where  they  were  supported  by  the  Central  Labor  Union  in 
the  first  general  strike  in  1833.  The  first  national  organ- 
ization of  tailors,  however,  did  not  come  until  after  the 
foundation  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  in  1866.  It  began,  as 
most  unions  of  that  period  did,  in  rebellion  against  an  older 
union  no  longer  effective.  In  1873  the  various  locals  under 
the  Knights  of  Labor  joined  to  form  a  national  organiza- 
tion. One  of  the  worst  difficulties  imder  which  they  labored 
was  the  necessity  for  secrecy,  due  to  the  blacklisting  and 
lockouts  in  the  reaction  that  followed  the  Civil  War.  Partly 
for  this  reason  and  partly  through  inherent  weaknesses  in 
the  organization,  the  Knights  of  Labor  were  never  very 
successful  in  organizing  the  clothing  workers.  i 

The  decade  of  1880-1890  was  filled  with  uprisings,  new         *  \         J 
organizations,  counter-movements  and  revolts.     Finally  in     JC^^r 
1891  the  United  Garment  Workers  was  organized,  sup-     '   AI    v^ 
ported  at  the  beginning,  by  the  United  Hebrew  Trades.     |  wr     ^ 
The  union  was  organized  under  the  leadership  of  dissatisfied    ^    JJ^ 
officers  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  took  immediate  steps 
to  entrench  and  safeguard  itself  by  obtaining  a  charter  from 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.    This  step  was  strongly 
opposed  by  the  United  Hebrew  Trades,  which  just  a  little 
while  before  had  urged  the  organization  of  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers,  and  it  passed  a  resolution  in  1892  criticising 
their  action  in  affiliating  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.    In  1893  the  new  union  engineered  a  strike  that  de- 
veloped into  a  fight  with  the  Knights  of  Labor,  from  which 
the  United  Garment  Workers  emerged  victorious. 

This  strike  was  followed  by  a  period  of  severe  depression  ^  i; 

and  unemployment,  lasting  until  the  beginning  of  the  new  j  ,;  '-'^  i 

era  of  inside  shops.     It  was  largely  in  these  years,  from        j-'^j'-^ 
1883  to  1894,  that  the  sweat-shop  came  to  be  the  character-    >^,  'i 
istic  feature  of  the  clothing  industry,  and  became  closely  /^'^'^ 

associated  in  the  minds  of  the  workers  with  the  contract  ii* 

system  that  prevailed  during  that  period.     Beginning  with   ,\  ,  ^ 
1894,  however,  the  great  inside  factories  began  to  spring  up.   |^      ^v^'' 
Their  effect  was  greatly  to  facilitate  the  work  of  organiza- 
tion, partly  because  of  the  greater  accessibility  of  workers 


74       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

through  the  grouping  by  sections,  and  partly  because  of  the 
relative  decrease  in  the  number  of  home  workers. 

The  United  Garment  Workers  reaped  the  benefits  of 
these  great  changes,  and  soon  found  itself  the  most  power- 
ful of  the  then  existing  clothing  workers'  organizations.  The 
union  comprised  three  main  branches  of  the  garment  industry 
— overalls,  shirts,  and  "  men's  and  boys'  clothing."  Early 
in  their  history  the  United  Garment  Workers  were  fairly 
successful  in  organizing  the  pants-makers,  children's  jacket 
makers,  and  especially  the  overall  makers.  With  the 
Brotherhood  of  Tailors  of  New  York,  however,  which  had 
affiliated  with  the  United  Garment  Workers,  but  had  to  a 
certain  degree  retained  its  independence,  the  new  organiza- 
tion got  on  badly  from  the  beginning.  This  hostility  con- 
tinued and  grew  throughout  the  history  of  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  all  the  events  up  to  1914,  and  ac- 
^'^  cording  to  their  own  subsequent  statements,  the  hostility 
and  distrust  of  the  tailors  were  founded  principally  on  the 
following  grievances:  (1)  The  failure  of  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  to  organize  the  tailors,  or  to  support  them 
in  their  attempts  to  organize  or  increase  their  membership; 
(2)  refusal  to  take  notice  of  the  growing  demand  on  the 
part  of  the  clothing  workers  for  industrial  union- 
ism rather  than  craft  unionism;  (3)  autocratic  and 
unrepresentative  administration  of  the  union's  busi- 
ness, both  constitutionally  and  unconstitutionally;  (4) 
corrupt  practices  existing  among  the  officers  of  the 
United  Garment  Workers,  and  the  misuse  of  union 
funds,  particularly  in  connection  with  the  abuse  of  the  union 
label.  How  far  these  complaints  were  justified,  the  events 
themselves  show  best. 

Serious  dissatisfaction  with  the  union's  policy  in  regard 
to  the  organization  of  the  tailors  was  manifested  in  1904  at 
the  close  of  an  unsuccessful  strike  in  New  York  City.  It 
was  only  one  of  many  cases  in  which  the  clothing  workers 
were  to  find  themselves  not  only  unsupported  at  a  crucial 


^\^ 


A-- 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  75 

moment  by  their  own  leaders,  but  forced  to  accept  unsatis- 
factory terms  of  settlement. 

In  the  meantime  there  were  many  proofs  of  neglect  in 
regular  "  peace-time  "  organization  work  as  well,  in  the  dis- 
tress signals  sent  out  by  various  locals  seeking  support  for 
their  failing  membership.  At  the  convention  of  1906,  for 
example,  a  Chicago  tailors'  local  reported  that  its  member- 
ship had  fallen  from  450  to  30,  and  they  asked  the  national 
office  to  help  them  regain  their  membership.  Another  local 
reported  "  a  state  of  loss  of  confidence,  and  in  some  cases 
discouraged  to  a  great  extent."  Another  Chicago  local  re- 
ported a  drop  in  membership  from  500  to  32,  and  said  that 
the  only  way  to  organize  was  "  to  show  outsiders  the  direct 
benefit,  moral  and  financial,  it  is  for  them  to  be  organized 
— we  have  nothing  to  offer."  A  St.  Louis  local  appealed 
for  help,  reporting  that  they  were  "  almost  out  of  existence." 
Various  other  locals  described  similar  conditions,  but  almost 
without  exception  their  requests  were  ignored. 

The  distrust  that  had  been  awakened  in  the  minds  of  the 
workers  was  further  stimulated  by  the  action  of  the  leaders 
in  the  Tailors'  first  general  strike  of  1907  in  New  York. 
After  the  New  York  Tailors  had  struck  for  the  right  to 
organize  and  for  the  53-hour  week,  there  was  a  split  within 
the  ranks  and  the  United  Garment  Workers'  officials 
charged  those  who  persisted  in  opposing  them  with  in- 
surgency, and  expelled  them  from  membership,  although 
fifty  thousand  members  had  voted  in  favor  of  the  so-called 
"insurgents."  The  split  was  apparently  healed,  but  the 
strike  was  lost.  But  perhaps  the  most  important  single 
event  that  proved  to  the  workers,  not  only  that  the  national 
office  was  not  primarily  interested  in  organizing  the  clothing 
workers,  but  that  it  was  actually  in  many  cases  opposed, 
was  the  Chicago  strike  of  1910,  and  its  settlement.  Presi- 
dent Rickert  in  his  report  on  the  1910  strike  to  the  next 
convention  shows  clearly  that  the  officers  were  opposed  to 
the  purposes  of  the  strikers.  In  discussing  the  rejection 
of  the  first  agreement  which  he  had  drawn  up,  and  which 
provided  that  "  no  question  of  union  or  open  shop  or  shop 


76       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

organization  should  be  submitted  to,  or  passed  upon  by  tlie 
collective  machinery  established,"  Rickert  says :  **  in  this 
they  were  aided  by  the  English,  Foreign  and  Socialist  press 
as  well  as  by  other  organizations,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  these  same  officials  had,  prior  to  the  submission  of 
this  proposition,  acknowledged  many  times  that  any  agree- 
ment would  be  a  good  settlement." 

Finally  in  1911  the  Tailor  locals  of  New  York  and  Balti- 
more called  a  conference  at  Philadelphia  on  the  subject  of 
the  organization  of  the  tailors,  in  which  they  voiced  their  com- 
plaints against  the  United  Garment  Workers: 

"  The  National  organization  of  the  United  Garment  Workers 
is  in  existence  for  the  last  few  years,  and  we  tailors  have  organ- 
ized that  body.  We  helped  the  organization  in  its  moments 
of  need,  consequently  we  worked  very  hard  and  paid  every 
cent  to  set  the  organization  on  a  solid  material  basis.  At  last 
we  enjoy  very  little  of  the  benefits  of  this  organization. 

"  Who  will  deny  the  fact  that  the  national  organization  is 
presently  being  controlled  by  representatives  of  the  Overall 
Makers,  who  do  not  want  and  cannot  understand  the  interests 
of  the  tailor  in  America .'' 

"  Who  will  deny  the  fact  that  the  officers  of  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  of  America  are  not  able  to  deal  with  more  than 
the  Union  label,  and  probably  not  even  this?  *  *  *  xhe 
Tailor  Unions  are  now  like  a  *  step-child '  to  the  national 
organization." 

The  result  of  this  conference  was  the  formation  of  the 
Tailors'  Council  which,  after  bitter  opposition,  the  United 
Garment  Workers  was  forced  to  recognize. 

A  vigorous  organization  campaign  by  the  tailor  locals  of 
New  York  City  in  1911-1912  was  then  undertaken  with 
astounding  results.  This  new  activity  marked  the  taking  of 
the  lead  by  the  tailors  themselves  toward  improving  their 
conditions  and  organizing  the  industry.  Finally,  when  a 
general  strike  was  called  December  30,  1912,  for  the  48-hour 
week  and  wage  increases,  all  of  the  workers  in  the  industrj'^ 
responded.  The  organization  campaign  carried  on  by  the 
local  unions  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Tailors  in  New  York 
had  been  so  successful  that  the  general  officers  of  the  United 


Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members  Bohemian 
Coat  Makers  Local  6 


Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members  Polish  Coat 
Makers  Local  38 


Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members  Italian  Coat 
Makers  Local  270 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  77 

Garment  Workers,  unlike  on  the  occasion  of  previous  strikes, 
gave  their  sanction  to  the  organized  fight  of  the  tailors  for 
better  conditions. 

From  the  first  the  officers  of  the  United  Garment  Workers 
attempted  to  control  the  strike  and  to  arrange  "  settlements  " 
with  the  manufacturers.  In  January  they  submitted  an 
agreement  which  was  rejected  because  it  did  not  reduce 
hours  and  offered  only  5  per  cent,  increase  in  wages.  The 
workers  refused  to  vote  on  a  second  agreement  negotiated 
by  the  national  officers  for  a  52-hour  week  and  an  increase 
of  $1.00  per  week.  Even  when  the  employers  agreed  to  re- 
duce the  hours  to  50  as  of  January,  1914,  the  workers  re- 
fused to  consider  it.  Finally,  on  February  28,  1913,  the 
general  executive  board  of  the  United  Garment  Workers 
accepted  without  reference  to  the  strikers  another  "  settle- 
ment "  with  the  manufacturers'  association.  This  settlement 
provided  for  an  increase  of  $1.00  per  week,  the  aboHtion  of 
sub-contracting  and  the  creation  of  a  commission  to  fix  hours. 

When  these  terms  were  made  public,  the  Brotherhood  of 
Tailors  rejected  the  agreement  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
entered  into  without  the  consent  of  the  strikers.  The  workers 
were  so  incensed  by  the  treachery  of  their  officers  and  the 
support  given  the  unpopular  settlement  by  the  Jewish  Daily 
Forward  when  the  strike  had  been  virtually  won  that  they 
smashed  the  windows  of  the  Forward  offices  in  protest. 

The  Brotherhood  of  Tailors  immediately  called  a  confer- 
ence of  Jewish  unions  and  other  progressive  organizations 
and  formed  a  special  committee  to  carry  on  the  strike.  The 
sum  of  $50,000  was  raised.  The  Forward  then  followed  the 
popular  movement,  realized  its  original  error  and  urged  the 
strikers  on.  General  President  Rickert  and  the  other  officers 
of  the  U.  G.  W.  on  the  other  hand  wrote  to  the  Mayor  of 
the  city  urging  him  to  stop  further  picketing  by  the  strikers. 

The  strike  was  finally  terminated  on  March  13th  when  a 
new  settlement  negotiated  by  the  newly  created  strike  com- 
mittee was  ratified  by  a  referendum  vote  of  the  strikers. 
While  the  workers  did  not  receive  in  full  their  demands,  they 
secured  important  concessions  in  the  improvement  of  work- 


78       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ing  conditions.  More  than  that  they  had  laid  the  foundation 
for  a  permanent  organization  of  all  the  workers  in  the  cloth- 
ing industry  in  New  York  City.  Effective  organization  in 
New  York  dates  from  the  1913  strike.  The  action  of  the  gen- 
eral officers  of  the  U.  G.  W.  in  their  attempts  to  force  the 
workers  to  settle  and  their  move  to  stop  picketing  after  the 
refusal  of  the  strikers  to  accept  the  settlement  of  February 
28th  represented  only  an  attempt  to  do  in  New  York  in  1913 
the  thing  which  they  had  tried  unsuccessfully  in  Chicago  in 
1910.  The  breach  between  officialdom  and  rank  and  file  had 
been  widened.  To  the  officers  of  the  U.  G.  W.  the  growth 
of  the  New  York  Tailor  locals  had  become  a  serious  menace 
to  their  continuance  in  power. 

The  opposition  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  to  in- 
dustrial unionism  and  their  failure  even  to  understand  the 
\pr    demand  was  in  part  another  phase  of  their  antagonism  to 
J^  A      the  tailors.    For  the  demand  rose  not  among  the  conservative 
y/r>|   '      shirt  and  over-all  workers  but  among  the  progressive  and 

t^^  X  '^         dissatisfied  groups  of  the  clothing  workers. 

»^  \v    ,  /'  The  very  constitution  of  the  old  United  Garment  Workers 

r'lt  ^*^  based  on  the  principle  of  local  autonomy.     District 

councils  were  merely  loose  federations  of  locals  in  one  city 
and  were  in  practice  almost  powerless.  Any  local  in  the 
city  might,  for  example,  vote  for  a  strike  without  reference 
to  or  consultation  with  the  district  council  or  other  local 
unions  in  the  same  city,  regardless  of  their  interdependence. 
The  matter  would  then  go  directly  to  the  general  officers 
for  their  approval  or  disapproval.  Resolutions  attempting 
to  remedy  this  situation  by  giving  the  district  councils  more 
power  were  always  defeated  by  the  General  Executive 
Board.  But  the  fact  that  such  resolutions  were  brought  in 
increasing  numbers  as  the  years  went  on  is  proof  of  the 
dissatisfaction  of  the  members  with  the  existing  system.  As 
early  as  1906  a  resolution  was  submitted  providing  for  the 
sanction  and  recognition  of  semi-annual  conferences  between 
different  locals  and  district  councils,  having  the  power  to 
legislate  for  locals  represented,  subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  General  Executive  Board.     This    resolution    was    de- 


m 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  79 

feated.  Many  other  resolutions  of  the  same  purport  were 
introduced  at  this  and  later  conventions.  One  recommended 
that  all  branches  of  the  trade  be  represented  on  the  executive 
board  and  another  recommended  the  representation  of  each 
principal  market.    In  1912  a  drastic  resolution  was  brought: 

"  We  have  resolved,  The  only  means  to  bring  about  a  power- 
ful organization  is  with  an  industrial  war,  which  will  involve 
all  occupations  affiliated  with  the  U.  G.  W.  And  it  must  ex- 
tend wherever  the  U.  G.  W.  has  jurisdiction,  and  tie  up  the 
entire  clothing  industry,  at  such  time  as  the  delegates  see  fit; 
and  we  must  have  a  uniform  price  for  every  occupation  ♦  ♦  * 
We  are  using  old-time  methods  *  *  *  The  garment  workers 
cannot  expect  the  rest  of  the  tailors  of  this  country  to  be 
organized  and  to  have  confidence  in  it  or  respect  for  it  unless 
it  gives  some  evidence  of  thought  and  intelligence  and  a  careful 
consideration  and  genuine  intention  on  this  and  other  important 
matters  before  us  demanding  solution." 

The  committee  on  resolutions  recommended  that  this  be 
"  received  and  spread  on  the  minutes,"  which  was  done. 

The  utter  failure  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  to 
understand  the  demand  for  industrial  unionism  was  shown 
conclusively  in  the  General  Executive  Board  report  to  the 
1914  convention: 

"  The  hue  and  cry  for  an  industrial  form  of  organization  in 
the  tailoring  industry  is  difficult  to  understand  *  *  *  It  is 
the  opinion  of  your  General  Executive  Board  that  this  conven- 
tion should  go  on  record  as  flatly  opposed  to  amalgamation  in 
any  form  at  this  time  with  any  of  the  other  organizations  in 
the  clothing  trade,  and  that  the  incoming  general  executive 
board  be  empowered  to  resist  any  encroachment  upon  our 
jurisdiction  by  any  other  union." 

The  constitution  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  pro- 
viding as  it  did  for  local  autonomy  and  dependence  of  the 
locals  directly  on  the  general  officers,  lent  itself  readily  to 
autocratic  control  on  the  part  of  the  officers.  A  few  ex- 
amples will  show  how  the  extraordinary  powers  held  by  the 
officers  and  General  Executive  Board  under  the  constitution 
were  misused  by  them.  Foremost  among  these  was  the 
power  to  grant  charters,  which  the  general  officers  used  so 


/i 


80       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

as  to  strengthen  their  control  of  the  union.  Strikes  were 
referred  directly  to  the  general  office.  No  person  was 
entitled  to  strike  benefits  unless  he  had  been  a  member  in 
good  standing  at  last  three  months  before  the  strike  was 
declared.  One  article  sought  to  protect  the  officers  from 
criticism  by  providing  for  trial  of  members  in  "cases  when 
a  general  officer  has  been  slandered  or  libelled."  Thus  effec- 
tive criticism  was  often  stifled  by  fear  of  expulsion  and  loss 
of  a  job. 

In  addition  to  constitutional  powers  originally  conferred 
upon  them,  thef  officers  were  constantly  seeking  to  strengthen 
their  hold  by  bringing  in  new  resolutions.  It  should  be 
noted  that  for  years  the  officers  had  effectively  controlled 
the  conventions  either  through  the  appointment  of  commit- 
tees or  through  control  of  the  delegates,  or  through  over- 
representation  of  those  locals  favorable  to  themselves — and 
often  by  all  of  these  methods.  This  last  expedient  was  made 
possible  by  the  power  to  grant  charters  to  any  nxmaber  of 
>/  locals.    The  result  was  the  chartering  of  many  numerically 

small  locals  in  those  districts  favorable  to  the  administra- 
tion, especially  among  the  overall  and  shirt  workers.  Con- 
sequently, although  their  delegates  sometimes  out-numbered 
the  delegates  of  clothing  locals  for  purposes  of  voting,  they 
were  not  actually  representative  of  the  majority  of  the 
membership.  Thus  by  one  means  or  another  resolutions 
brought  by  officers  were  generally  adopted,  while  those  op- 
posing them  were  unfavorably  reported  and  lost. 

One  of  the  most  striking  resolutions  seeking  to  secure  the 
power  of  the  officers  was  brought  by  Secretary  Larger  in 
1906.  He  recommended  that  the  general  officers  be  given 
power  to  suspend  immediately  any  local  refusing  to  obey 
their  orders.  This  recommendation  despite  much  opposition 
was  finally  carried.  Two  constitutional  amendments  as  to 
discipline  were  not  even  voted  on  by  the  convention  but  were 
merely  concurred  in  by  the  Board  and  subsequently  referred 
to  as  "  amendments  to  our  by-laws."  In  1912  Sidney  Hill- 
man,  then  chief  deputy  for  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx 
workers,  forced  a  hearing  for  two  delegates  whom  Rickert 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  81 

attempted  to  disfranchise  under  these  "  by-laws,"  without 
giving  them  a  hearing. 

Due  to  the  combined  efforts  of  Rickert  and  Larger,  nine 
resolutions  for  reform  elections  were  reported  unfavorably 
by  the  committee.  Among  these  were  resolutions  for  the 
secret  ballot,  for  the  restoration  of  the  referendimi,  for  the 
removal  of  officers  by  referendum  and  other  similar  reforms. 
It  should  also  be  noted  that  in  1912  as  in  most  other  years, 
Rickert  and  Larger  were  elected  by  acclamation.  Never- 
theless, strong  opposition  was  already  being  shown,  at  that 
time,  to  their  administration.  Though  the  constitution 
originally  provided  for  a  referendum  vote,  the  officers  had 
tried  to  abolish  it  as  early  as  1906.  To  quote  Rickert,  who 
claimed  to  approve  of  the  referendum  in  theory:  "  It  has 
been  conclusively  demonstrated  that  in  our  organization  for 
the  general  interest  of  its  progress,  the  referendum  has  been 
an  absolute  failure.  I  would  recommend  that  the  consti- 
tution be  so  changed  as  to  give  the  convention  power  to 
decide  *  *  *  without  submitting  it  to  a  referendum  vote." 
This  resolution  was  adopted  by  vote  of  44  to  17. 

In  opposing  these  resolutions  to  restore  the  referendum, 
Rickert,  in  1912,  said:  "The  referendum  vote  has  been  a 
bar  to  progress  and  advancement.  I  would  leave  the  law 
as  it  is,  giving  the  locals  and  General  Executive  Board  the 
right  to  submit  amendments  between  conventions,  but  feel 
that  all  laws  adopted  at  conventions  should  go  into  effect 
without  being  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people."  One 
of  the  measures  thus  passed  was  a  resolution  introduced  by 
one  of  the  officers  raising  the  salaries  of  the  general  officers 
and  awarding  themselves  back  pay  for  two  years,  without 
referring  this  question  to  the  membership. 

The  abuse  of  the  union  label  as  practised  by  the  officers 
of  the  United  Garment  Workers  is  cited  in  the  New  York 
convention  of  1914  as  one  of  the  tailors'  most  serious  griev- 
ances and  a  direct  cause  of  the  revolt.  From  the  beginning 
the  LTnited  Garment  Workers  had  neglected  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  tailors  to  a  far  greater  extent  than  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  overall  and  shirt  workers.    The  explanation  for 


82       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

this  discrimination  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  through 
the  use  of  the  union  label,  the  Garment  Workers  were  able 
to  control  the  overall  workers  more  effectively  than  they 
could  hope  to  control  the  tailors.  The  sale  of  union  labels 
was  the  great  activity  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  and 
they  naturally  found  it  profitable  to  devote  most  of  their 
energies  to  organization  in  those  branches  in  which  the  union 
label  could  be  most  readily  used.  As  a  result  the  union  label 
was  a  serious  cause  of  friction  between  the  overall  and  shirt 
workers  and  the  tailors. 

In  the  hands  of  the  officers  of  the  United  Garment 
Workers,  the  label,  instead  of  being  a  safeguard  to  the 
workers  as  it  was  intended  to  be,  became  a  dangerous  weapon 
whereby  large  funds  were  extorted  from  the  membership 
and  misused,  standards  lowered,  and  the  workers,  either 
ignorant  of  the  working  of  this  system  or  else  helpless  to 
remedy  it,  were  often  forced  to  scab  on  each  other.  The 
union  label  became  one  of  the  most  important  sources  of 
revenue  for  the  officers.  The  United  Garment  Workers 
were  supposed  to  sell  labels  to  firms  that  were  under  agree- 
ment as  to  conditions  of  work  and  employed  only  union  mem- 
bers. But  in  practice  the  granting  of  labels  often  amoimted 
to  conspiracy  with  the  employers,  some  of  whom  retained 
the  use  of  labels  without  conforming  to  union  standards.  In 
many  cases  the  tailors  knew  the  conditions  of  union  label 
shops  to  be  worse  than  the  conditions  in  non-label  houses. 

Such  use  of  the  label  proved  to  be  profitable,  however, 
and  the  officers  again  and  again  emphasized  the  advantages 
of  the  union  label  and  urged  their  more  extended  use.  Large 
sums  were  spent  on  labels  and  label  advertising  that  might 
have  gone  into  organization  work.  In  one  year,  1906,  the 
general  officers  spent  approximately  $16,656  for  organizing, 
$13,250  for  strike  benefits,  $24,572  for  labels  and  $10,748 
for  label  advertising  and  propaganda. 

In  1912  President  Rickert  said  that  the  union  label  was 
"  the  most  effective  weapon  that  can  be  utilized  by  the  wage 
earners  of  America.  Its  general  demand  would  in  a  great 
measure  bring  peace  to  the  labor  movement.    The  exploita- 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  88 

tion  of  the  laborer  would  cease  and  strikes  and  lockouts 
would  be  minimized  *  *  *  the  working  men  and  women  of 
this  country  do  not  appreciate  the  full  value  of  the  union 
label  and  hence  it  becomes  necessary  to  have  a  large  corps 
of  label  promoters  in  the  field." 

Often  strikes  in  non-label  shops  would  be  given  support 
by  the  United  Garment  Workers,  while  strikes  in  label  shops 
would  be  betrayed  by  their  own  officers  who  supplied  the 
employers  with  scab  workers,  to  whom  they  had  given  union 
books.  The  workers  for  a  long  time  did  not  dare  to  voice 
their  grievance  openly  for  fear  of  losing  their  jobs  through 
the  union.  Such  complaints  as  were  made,  to  the  effect  that 
the  officers  were  too  lenient  with  firms  that  misused  the 
label,  were  repeatedly  ignored.  Thus,  for  instance,  many 
clothing  manufacturers  were  enabled  to  retain  the  use  of  the 
label,  despite  the  protests  of  the  workers,  when  in  reality, 
clothes  in  these  shops  were  made  under  the  worst  sweat- 
shop conditions. 

In  1906  a  Chicago  local  protested  against  the  selling  of 
the  label  to  special  order  coatmakers,  who  were  using  50 
per  cent,  non-union  helpers,  but  no  action  was  taken  on 
this  complaint. 

In  view  of  their  use  of  the  union  label,  the  union  officers 
naturally  considered  strikes  an  unnecessary  expense  and  in- 
terruption, and  they  concerned  themselves  as  little  with  the 
improvement  of  conditions  through  strikes  as  with  the  work 
of  organization. 

Faced  by  these  abuses  and  the  waning  strength  of  the 
organization,  both  numerically  and  financially,  the  progres- 
sive members  began  to  organize  for  resistance.  As  the  time 
for  the  1914  convention  approached,  the  dissatisfaction  of 
the  workers  came  to  a  head  and  it  was  apparent  to  the  offi- 
cers that  it  would  be  difficult  for  them  to  retain  their  power. 
The  methods  used  in  past  conventions  they  realized  would 
not  be  sufficient  to  stem  the  tide  of  indignation  that  the 
tailors'  locals  were  now  showing  more  and  more  openly. 
"  There  was  a  general  and  widespread  dissatisfaction  among 
the  membership  with  the  former  international  administra- 


84       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

tors  who  never  acted  in  accord  with  the  membership  *  *  *. 
The  membership  growing  ever  stronger  and  more  self-con- 
scious, looked  forward  to  the  biennial  convention  as  the  place 
for  correcting  the  different  evils  they  were  suffering 
from." 

Nashville  was  chosen  as  the  convention  city  for  1914,  pri- 
marily because  it  was  convenient  for  the  overall  and  shirt- 
workers  and  very  inconvenient  for  the  clothing  workers. 
An  active  campaign  was  waged  by  the  clothing  locals 
throughout  1914  against  the  re-election  of  the  old  officers. 
The  selection  of  Nashville  as  the  convention  city  was  re- 
garded as  the  first  step  toward  reducing  the  power  of  these 
opposing  locals.  A  motion  to  hold  the  convention  in  a  more 
central  location  (Rochester),  which  was  constitutionally 
made  by  a  tailors'  local  and  constitutionally  seconded,  was 
ignored  by  Secretary  Larger  and  no  vote  was  allowed,  al- 
though the  constitution  specifically  provided  for  such  refer- 
endum. In  giving  the  reason  for  his  refusal  to  put  this 
motion  to  referendum  vote.  Secretary  Larger  said  that  some 
of  the  locals  seconding  the  motion  were  in  arrears,  whereas 
in  fact  locals  charged  with  arrears  had  not  yet  had  their 
accounts  audited  and  were  therefore  supposedly  in  good 
standing.  Motions  to  remove  Larger  for  unconstitutional 
behavior  were  likewise  ignored.  At  the  convention  Larger 
evaded  the  issue  by  making  it  appear  that  he  was  charged 
with  violation  of  an  entirely  different  clause  of  the  constitu- 
tion. 

Referendum  on  a  change  of  the  convention  city  having 
been  refused,  in  spite  of  the  financial  difficulty  for  a  large 
number  of  eastern  locals  and  in  spite  of  the  unconstitu- 
tionality of  the  procedure,  the  convention  was  called  for 
October  12th  at  Nashville,  Tennessee.  The  call  included 
the  following  rulings  for  representation  and  credentials : 

"  Representation  in  the  convention  will  be  based  on  the  aver- 
age membership  on  which  local  unions  paid  per  capita  tax  for 
the  twenty-five  months  ending  August  31st,  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  convention.  Delegates  are  not  entitled  to  seats  in 
the  convention  unless  all  the  indebtedness  of  their  local  union 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  85 

to  General  Office  has  been  paid  in  full  to  August  31,  1914,  and 
unless  the  Local  Union  has  paid  per  capita  tax  to  the  Inter- 
national Union  on  all  its  members.  At  this  convention  matters 
of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  workers  will  be  discussed  and 
acted  on,  and  every  effort  will  be  made  to  broaden  the  field  and 
means  for  the  organization  of  the  yet  unorganized  workers  in 
the  clothing  industry.  Therefore,  the  importance  of  our  move- 
ment, the  duty  to  the  present  and  for  the  future,  demand  that 
every  local  union  entitled  to  representation  shall  send  its  full 
quota  of  delegates  to  the  Nashville  convention,  October  12, 
1914." 

But  the  officers  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  knew 
that  they  would  have  to  take  even  more  drastic  steps  to  hold 
their  own  against  the  rising  opposition  of  the  clothing  dele- 
gates. Having  already  violated  the  constitution  by  refusing 
to  submit  the  motion  to  convene  in  Rochester  to  referendum 
vote,  they  proceeded  to  disfranchise  the  majority  of  the 
opposing  locals'  delegates.  In  August,  just  before  the  elec- 
tion of  local  delegates,  General  Auditor  Haskins  was  sent 
out  to  audit  the  books  of  the  locals.  He  reported  large  in- 
debtedness against  those  locals  known  to  be  in  opposition 
to  the  officers  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  and  declared 
them  to  be  in  arrears.  On  September  12th  a  circular  letter 
was  sent  to  all  the  locals  thus  charged  with  arrears,  telling 
them  that  no  credentials  would  be  issued  to  delegates  of 
locals  whose  bills  were  not  paid.  The  letter  rested  this  policy 
on  the  following  clause  in  the  Constitution : 

"Section  10  of  Article  III  of  our  International  Constitu- 
tion reads  as  follows: 

**  No  Local  Union  shall  be  entitled  to  representation  at  the 
biennial  convention  unless  the  per  capita  tax  and  assessments 
are  paid  up  to  the  first  day  of  September  preceding  the  con- 
vention. Your  Local  Union  owes  $  per  Auditor 
Haskins'  statement,  which  is  herewith  attached.  Immediately 
on  payment  of  the  amount  due  as  above  stated,  this  office  will 
forward  credentials  to  your  Local  Union.  The  Local  Union 
failing  to  pay  its  indebtedness,  will  receive  no  credentials  and 
will  not  be  entitled  to  representation  at  the  coming  convention." 

The  bills  in  most  cases  were  declared  by  the  locals  to  be 
fabricated  for  the  purpose  of  disfranchising  the  local,  and 


86       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

in  many  cases  were  ridiculously  large.  The  amount  charged 
the  New  York  local  alone  was  $75,000.  On  September  28th 
a  second  letter  was  sent  to  these  locals,  threatening  them 
with  non-representation  unless  they  paid  at  once.  In  both 
letters  the  officers  claimed  to  be  acting  as  required  by  the 
constitution.  In  reality,  however,  the  letters  and  the  whole 
proceeding  were  in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  the  rights 
of  the  local  unions  concerned.  According  to  the  constitu- 
tion, the  representation  of  locals  was  to  be  based  on  the  aver- 
age membership  on  which  local  unions  had  paid  the  per 
capita  tax  for  the  twenty-four  months  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  convention,  no  local  union  having  more  than  four 
delegates.  The  delegates  were  not  entitled  to  seats  unless 
all  the  indebtedness  of  their  local  unions  to  the  General  Office 
had  been  paid  in  full  up  to  August  31,  1914,  and  unless  the 
local  union  had  paid  the  per  capita  tax  to  the  General  Office. 
The  locals  charged  with  arrears,  however,  were  not  in  ar- 
rears as  provided  by  the  constitution,  inasmuch  as  they  had 
paid  the  per  capita  tax  for  the  twenty-four  months  ending 
August  31st,  as  well  as  the  assessments  called  for,  and  had 
elected  delegates  in  proportion  to  the  membership  on  which 
they  had  paid  the  tax.  Even  if  this  had  not  been  the  case, 
however,  another  clause  in  the  Constitution  provided  that  any 
union  three  months  in  arrears  shall  be  allowed  until  the 
seventh  day  of  the  fourth  month,  and  if  not  then  paid,  shall 
be  suspended,  and  also  that  the  General  Secretary  shall 
notify  the  local  when  two  months  in  arrears.  None  of  the 
locals  charged  had  been  so  notified  by  the  Secretary  or  sus- 
pended for  non-payment.  The  indebtedness  reported  by 
Haskins  was  in  fact  new,  and  the  locals  had  never  previously 
been  informed  of  it.  All  were  constitutionally,  therefore,  in 
good  standing  and  "  their  standing  was  in  no  way  impaired 
by  the  claim,  made  at  the  last  hour,  that  they  were  indebted 
to  the  organization  for  per  capita  taxes  or  assessments  in 
addition  to  those  regularly  paid  by  them  from  month  to 
month." 

The  locals  claimed,  moreover,  that  even  if  the  indebted- 
ness reported  had  been  correct,  they  were  not  given  suffi- 


Chicago  members  of  the  General  Executive  Board 

A,  D.  Marimpietri  ^  it-  Frank  Rosenblum 

o- 1         r»-  Samuel  L,evin  oj.     i        c^    ^ 

Sidney  Kissman  Stephen  Skala 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  87 

cient  time  to  pay.  They  pointed  out  that  the  constitution 
provided  for  certain  contingencies,  such  as  unemployment, 
that  might  excuse  delay.  In  this  event,  therefore,  the  issue 
would  be  one  of  the  facts  in  the  case.  It  was  the  duty  of 
the  officers  to  ascertain  the  facts,  to  ask  the  local  to  prove 
the  existence  of  the  extenuating  circumstances,  and  to  require 
it  to  appear  in  its  own  defense.  But  no  opportunity  for  a 
hearing  was  given  the  locals,  either  to  protest  their  indebted- 
ness or  to  prove  the  existence  of  these  circumstances.  The 
letters  arbitrarily  assumed  the  facts: 

"  We  desire  herewith  to  notify  you  of  that  fact,  [that  all 
local  unions  in  question  are  not  entitled  to  representation  *  *  * 
and  will  not  be  seated],  so  that  if  your  Local  Union  is  unable 
to  pay  up,  you  will  know  that  your  delegates  cannot  be  seated." 

Finally,  the  constitution  provides  that  a  Committee  of 
Credentials  shall  pass  on  the  right  of  delegates  to  sit,  and 
the  clothing  workers  held  that  it  was  therefore  both  uncon- 
stitutional and  autocratic  for  the  Executive  Board  and 
officers  to  take  it  upon  themselves  to  decide  the  facts,  and  to 
act  upon  their  own  decision.  It  was  plain  to  the  delegates 
that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  national  officers  to  disfranchise 
the  locals  they  feared  in  whatever  way  they  found  possible. 

The  Convention  opened  Monday  morning,  October  12, 
in  Capitol  Hall,  Nashville,  Tenn.  The  New  York  delegates, 
the  great  majority  of  whom  represented  locals  declared  in 
arrears,  circulated  a  printed  appeal  to  the  delegates  stating 
their  case  and  urging  that  they  be  admitted  to  the  conven- 
tion. 

"  A  determined  effort  is  now  being  made  by  the  General 
Officers  of  our  organization  to  prevent  the  delegates  of  our 
locals  from  being  seated  at  the  Convention.  And  with  that 
end  in  view,  the  General  Officers  have  presented  to  the  locals 
enormous  bills  for  alleged  deficiencies. 

"  Whether  or  not  these  bills  are  correct  is  not  the  question 
before  you  at  the  present  time.  In  most  instances  our  locals 
claim  that  they  are  incorrect.  This  question  must  be  adjusted 
through  the  regular  channels  of  administrative  procedure.  If 
our  locals  should  be  found  to  be  indebted  to  the  United  Garment 
Workers  they  will  pay  such  indebtedness  with  all  possible  expe- 


88       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

dition,  and  if  they  should  fail  to  pay,  the  United  Garment 
Workers  will  have  a  constitutional  remedy  against  them.  The 
point  we  wish  to  make  is  that  the  question  is  entirely  foreign  to 
the  right  of  our  local  to  be  represented  in  the  convention." 

When  the  Convention  opened  on  October  12,  191 4<,  the 
Credential  Committee,  appointed  by  Rickert,  submitted  a 
partial  report,  recommending  the  seating  of  198  of  305  dele- 
gates, and  making  no  reference  at  all  to  the  others,  who  rep- 
resented clothing  locals  in  opposition  to  the  existing  admin- 
istration. The  meeting  was  about  to  proceed  to  business 
when  Frank  Rosenbltmi,  one  of  the  Chicago  delegates  who 
had  been  seated,  asked  if  the  report  of  the  Credential  Com- 
mittee was  complete.  The  President  said  that  it  was  not  yet 
complete  and  the  session  was  adjourned  without  further 
action.  Consequently,  when  the  meeting  convened  the  next 
morning,  it  was  not  yet  legally  organized.  All  delegates 
therefore  had  a  right  to  be  regarded  as  equal  and  having  the 
same  powers,  until  the  convention  was  definitely  constituted 
by  the  adoption  of  the  complete  report  of  the  Credential 
Committee.  From  the  very  beginning,  however,  the  dele- 
gates, whose  status  was  not  yet  reported  by  the  Committee, 
were  refused  admittance  and  were  physically  barred  from 
the  floor  of  the  convention  hall.  About  150  of  them  (repre- 
senting cutters'  and  tailors'  locals)  were  thus  illegally  re- 
fused admittance,  and  they  were  only  allowed  to  sit  in  the 
gallery.  President  Rickert  was  about  to  proceed  with  busi- 
ness when  Frank  Rosenblum  raised  the  point  of  order  on  the 
organization  of  the  convention  and  asked  for  a  vote.  The 
motion  was  put  to  vote,  but  Rickert,  in  counting,  ignored  the 
votes  of  the  delegates  in  the  gallery  and  reported  the  motion 
as  "  lost." 

Delegate  Rosenblimi  then  immediately  proposed  the  sus- 
pension of  the  roll  call,  as  it  was  unconstitutional  to  proceed 
to  other  business  until  the  Credential  Committee  had  com- 
pleted its  report.  This  objection  was  cheered  and  applauded 
with  great  enthusiasm  by  the  delegates  in  the  gallery.  Rick- 
ert overruled  Delegate  Rosenblum's  point  of  order  on  the 
ground  that  business  would  be  delayed  too  long  if  they  were 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  89 

to  wait  for  a  full  report.  Delegate  Rosenblum  appealed 
from  the  ruling  and  delivered  a  speech  denouncing  the  auto- 
cratic methods  of  the  officers  and  declaring  that  the  delegates 
in  the  gallery  were  legally  elected  representatives  of  the 
workers  with  as  much  right  as  any,  and  more  than  some  pres- 
ent, to  a  vote.  He  accused  the  officers  of  using  unconstitu- 
tional and  dishonest  methods  to  maintain  their  position,  be- 
cause they  knew  that  an  honest  vote  would  repudiate  them. 
The  appeal  was  put  to  a  vote,  and  the  majority  voted  in  favor 
of  the  objection,  but  Rickert  again  refused  to  count  the  votes 
of  the  delegates  in  the  gallery  and  declared  the  motion  lost. 
Another  motion  made  by  Delegate  Rosenblum  to  add  the 
names  of  these  delegates  to  the  report  was  voted  on  with  the 
same  result,  Rickert  refusing  to  recognize  all  votes. 

Delegate  Rissman,  of  Chicago,  then  moved  that  "  the 
president  be  removed  for  having  violated  the  constitution, 
and  that  in  his  place  be  nominated,  temporarily.  Brother 
Schneid  of  Chicago."  Rickert  refused  to  put  the  motion  to 
a  vote,  and  Delegate  Rissman,  therefore,  put  the  motion 
himself,  coimted  it,  and  declared  it  carried.  Delegate  Pass 
then  moved  that  since  the  majority  had  captured  the  conven- 
tion, the  regular  convention  representing  the  majority  should 
adjourn  and  reconvene  at  the  Duncan  Hotel.  He  also  put 
the  motion,  counted  the  votes,  and  announced  it  carried. 

Thereupon  all  the  delegates,  whom  the  general  officers 
sought  to  keep  out  of  the  convention,  without  charges,  with- 
out a  hearing  and  without  a  trial,  and  who  represented  the 
great  majority  of  the  membership,  left  the  building  in  a  body, 
joined  by  the  few  clothing  workers'  delegates  who  had  been 
seated.  The  overall  workers'  delegates  were  practically  the 
only  ones  remaining.  The  delegates  left  the  building  and 
marched  through  the  streets  to  reconvene  at  Duncan  Hotel. 


90       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

The  following  call  was  immediately  issued  to  all  delegates : 

"TO  THE  DULY  ELECTED  DELEGATES  OF  LOCALS 
OF  THE  UNITED  GARMENT  WORKERS  OF 
AMERICA  TO  THE  18TH  BIENNIAL  CONVEN- 
TION HELD  IN  NASHVILLE,  TENNESSEE, 
GREETINGS : 

"  The  Convention  of  the  United  Garment  W^orkers  of  America 
will  be  held  this  13th  day  of  October,  1914,  at  the  Duncan 
Hotel,  in  the  City  of  Nashville,  State  of  Tennessee,  at  12  noon. 

**  The  reason  why  the  location  of  the  Convention  is  changed 
from  the  Capitol  Hall  to  the  Hall  in  the  Duncan  Hotel,  corner 
•  Fourth  Avenue  and  Cedar  Street,  is  that  the  meeting  place 
originally  designated,  for  the  holding  of  such  Convention,  has 
been  seized  by  a  minority  of  the  delegates  duly  elected  to  the 
said  18th  Biennial  Convention  by  the  locals  constituting  the 
United  Garment  Workers  of  America,  and  said  place  being 
improperly,  illegally  and  by  force,  held  by  said  minority,  as  an 
illegal  and  improperly  constituted  Convention  of  the  United 
Garment  Workers  of  America. 

"  And  we  urge  all  accredited  delegates  to  the  said  18th  Bien- 
nial Convention  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the  Convention  at  the 
time  above  given,  and  at  the  place  above  stated." 

The  first  session  of  the  Clothing  Workers'  Convention  at 
noon  of  October  13th  was  attended  by  practically  all  the 
clothing  workers'  delegates.  Mr.  Jacob  Panken,  of  New 
York,  addressed  the  convention  and  was  most  enthusiasti- 
cally received.  A  Credential  Committee  and  a  few  tempo- 
rary officers  were  elected,  and  the  meeting  then  adjourned. 
The  Convention  was  called  to  order  in  the  afternoon  by 
Chairman  Schneid  and  the  roll  call  taken.  The  Chair  an- 
nounced that  all  officers  were  absent,  including  General 
President  Rickert,  General  Secretary  Larger,  General 
Treasurer  Waxman,  General  Auditor  Haskins,  though  they 
have  all  been  notified  to  appear.  Committees  were  then  ap- 
pointed and  the  convention  proceeded  to  regular  business 
and  reports.  On  Wednesday,  October  14th,  the  convention 
proceeded  to  the  election  of  permanent  officers  amid  great 
excitement  and  enthusiasm.  Sidney  HiUman,  of  Local  No. 
39,  Chicago,  was  unanimously  elected  General  President  of 
the  United  Garment  Workers  of  America,  Joseph  Schloss- 


Joseph  Schlossberg,  General  Sccrotfiry-Treasurer 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  91 

berg,  of  Local  No.  156,  New  York,  was  unanimously  elected 
General  Secretary  and  Tobias  Lapun,  of  New  York,  was 
elected  General  Treasurer,  while  Isidor  Kantrowitz,  of  New 
York,  was  elected  General  Auditor.  Rosenblum,  Marim- 
pietri,  Rabkin,  and  Seinfield  of  the  Overall  Workers,  were 
elected  members  of  the  General  Executive  Board.  Dele- 
gates to  represent  the  United  Garment  Workers  at  the  Con- 
vention of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  were  also 
elected.  The  convention  was  continued  in  the  afternoon  at 
407  Union  Street,  and  the  officers  were  officially  installed. 
Other  business  was  disposed  of  or  referred  to  the  General 
Executive  Board.  The  next  convention  was  set  for  1916  in 
Rochester,  New  York. 

The  organization  that  emerged  from  the  Nashville  Con- 
vention was  in  reality  the  nucleus  of  the  Amalgamated  Cloth- 
ing Workers  of  America.  The  name.  United  Garment 
Workers  of  America,  was  retained  until  December,  1914. 

Under  the  leadership  of  the  new  general  officers  elected 
at  the  Convention,  the  United  Garment  Workers  proceeded 
to  take  up  the  fight  against  the  old  officers  of  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  and  to  fulfill  its  promises  to  the  membership. 
Tailor  locals  in  all  the  markets  were  in  the  meantime  endors- 
ing the  action  of  their  delegates.  On  October  21st,  the 
Chicago  locals  assembled  in  a  great  mass  meeting  and  rati- 
fied the  action  of  their  delegates  at  Nashville  in  the  following 
resolution : 

"  Wheeeas^  At  the  Eighteenth  Biennial  Convention  of  the 
United  Garment  Workers  of  America  held  in  Nashville,  Tenn., 
on  October  12,  1914,  the  credential  committee  reported  ad- 
versely upon  seating  delegates  representing  seventy-five  per  cent. 
of  the  membership  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  of  America, 
and 

"  Wheeeas,  Every  possible  effort  was  made  to  secure  a  hear- 
ing and  explanation  was  demanded  for  such  high  handed 
methods  but  the  delegates  representing  only  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  membership  in  the  hands  of  the  present  officers  of 
the  United  Garment  Workers  of  America,  in  conjunction  with 
one  Robert  Noren,  Secretary  of  the  Overall  Manufacturers' 
Association  and  delegates  who  were  absolutely  not  eligible  to 
be  seated,  denied  such  hearing  and  explanation,  and 


92       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

"  Wheeeas,  These  proceedings  were  the  most  vicious  and 
unwarranted  denial  of  the  Constitutional  law  of  the  United 
Garment  Workers  of  America,  and  a  blot  on  the  good  name  of 
Organized  Labor  and  a  disgrace  to  the  Labor  Movement  of 
America,  and 

"Whereas,  The  delegates  representing  the  seventy-five  per 
cent,  of  the  membership  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  of 
America  felt  it  incumbent  upon  them  to  safeguard  and  protect 
the  interests  of  those  whom  they  represented,  proceeded  to  or- 
ganize the  Convention  of  United  Garment  Workers  of  America 
under  constitution  and  by-laws  of  said  organization,  said  con- 
vention was  held  in  the  Duncan  Hotel  and  transacted  all  the 
business  pertaining  to  the  United  Garment  Workers  of  America, 
and  elected  a  full  set  of  general  officers  for  the  ensuing  term, 
now,  therefore  be  it, 

"  Resolved,  That  we,  the  membership  of  the  Chicago  Locals 
in  mass  meeting  assembled,  October  21,  1914,  in  the  West  Side 
Auditorium,  heartily  ratify  the  action  taken  by  our  delegates 
to  protect  and  safeguard  our  organization  and  hereby  pledge 
our  undivided  support  to  our  newly  elected  officers." 

The  old  United  Garment  Workers'  officers  put  up  a  bitter 
fight.  On  October  31st,  a  letter  was  sent  out  to  all  the  locals 
by  Larger  describing  the  Convention  and  informing  them  of 
the  status  of  the  new  organization  in  the  eyes  of  the  old 
Greneral  Officers: 

"  The  convention  held  at  the  Duncan  Hotel  by  the  bolters, 
have  taken  the  name  of  the  New  United  Garment  Workers  of 
America.  They  have  brought  suit  against  the  legally  elected 
officers  for  possession  of  the  national  office,  therefore  we  wish 
to  advise  you  to  pay  no  attention  to  any  communication  or 
order  unless  said  order  or  communication  is  signed  by  B.  A. 
Larger,  General  Secretary  and  on  the  letterhead  of  Interna- 
tional Office,  until  further  notice.  Our  offices  are  in  116-117- 
118-120-122-124  Bible  House,  New  York  City,  and  checks  in 
payment  of  labels  and  per  capita  tax  MUST  be  made  payable 
to  B.  A.  Larger,  General  Secretary,  as  heretofore.  Send  no 
checks  to  anyone  else  and  recognize  no  label  secretary  except 
those  authorized  by  us  to  act  in  that  capacity.  Recognize  no 
local  union  or  member  except  those  who  are  loyal  and  in  good 
standing  in  this  organization." 

In  the  meantime  legal  action,  both  defensive  and  offensive, 
was  taken  by  the  new  organization,  and  a  report  on  their 


THE  BREAK  IN  1914  »8 

progress  was  made  to  the  Special  New  York  Convention. 

In  November  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  held  its 
regular  Convention.  To  it  both  organizations  elected  and 
sent  delegates,  each  claiming  to  be  the  legitimate  organiza- 
tion of  the  clothing  workers.  A  complete  and  detailed  report 
of  the  entire  situation  was  printed  by  the  new  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  and  circulated  among  the  delegates  under 
the  title,  "The  Case  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  of 
America."  This  report,  signed  by  President  Hillman  and 
Secretary  Schlossberg,  was  designed  to  put  all  the  facts 
clearly  before  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  however,  refused  even  to 
give  the  organization  a  hearing.  The  delegates  of  the 
Rickert  faction  were  recognized  and  seated  because  Rickert 
and  Larger  were  the  only  Garment  Workers'  officers  offi- 
cially known  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  On 
November  16th,  President  Gompers  and  Secretary  Morrison 
sent  out  a  circular  letter  to  the  clothing  workers'  locals  in- 
forming them  that  the  United  Garment  Workers  was 
affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  that 
Rickert  and  Larger  were  its  officers. 

In  December,  1914,  the  General  Executive  Board  of  the 
new  United  Garment  Workers  sent  out  a  call  to  all  district 
and  local  unions  for  a  special  convention  to  be  held  in  New 
York,  beginning  December  25,  1914.  The  purpose  of  this 
convention  was  to  begin  the  constructive  work  of  removing 

"  the  antiquated  and  undemocratic  forms  and  methods  of  our 
organization,  as  laid  out  by  our  present  constitution;  establish 
such  organic  laws  as  will  insure  to  the  Membership  a  deter- 
mining voice  in  the  affairs  of  our  organization  *  *  *  not 
only  at  a  time  of  a  great  crisis,  when  the  Membership  rises 
from  under  the  heel  of  despotism,  but  at  all  times.  In  short 
the  laws  and  institutions  of  our  organization  must  be  so  changed 
as  to  permit  of  the  freest  and  fullest  expression  of  the  truly  pro- 
gressive spirit  of  our  Membership,  and  enable  it  to  march 
unfettered  abreast  of  the  Modern  Labor  Movement." 

The  report  of  the  general  executive  board  to  this  con- 
vention included  a  summary  of  their  activities  during  the 
first  few  months  of  their  progress  in  the  long-neglected  work 


94       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  organization,  and  a  re-statement  of  the  principles  and 
purposes  of  the  organization.  At  this  convention  the  Gen- 
eral Officers  elected  at  the  Nashville  Convention  were  con- 
firmed. Their  activities  were  endorsed  by  the  delegates. 
The  Convention  proceeded  to  the  drafting  and  adoption  of 
a  new  constitution  suited  to  the  real  purposes  of  the  Union. 
It  was  at  this  Convention  also  that  the  name  of  the  union 
was  chosen.  An  agreement  with  the  Tailors'  Industrial 
Union,  formerly  the  Journeymen  Tailors'  Union,  providing 
for  their  amalgamation  with  the  new  clothing  workers' 
union,  was  submitted  by  the  General  Executive  Board  to 
the  Convention  and  was  adopted.  The  agreement  was  as 
follows : 

"  First :  This  organization  shall  be  known  as  the  Amalga- 
mated Clothing  Workers  of  America. 

"  Second :  The  officers  shall  consist  of :  General  President, 
General  Secretary,  General  Treasurer,  General  Auditor,  and 
eleven  General  Executive  Board  Members,  three  of  whom  must 
be  from  the  Tailors'  Industrial  Union. 

"  Third :  The  General  Executive  Board  shall  organize  the 
industry  into  departments  when  conditions  warrant.  Such 
department  shall  have  full  control  of  its  own  funds  and  shall 
have  the  right  to  make  such  laws  to  govern  its  department  as 
it  sees  fit,  providing  such  laws  do  not  conflict  with  the  general 
laws. 

"  Fourth :  Per  capita  tax  payable  to  the  general  office  shall 
not  be  less  than  fifteen  cents  per  month  for  each  member  in  good 
standing. 

"  Fifth :  Method  of  election  of  general  officers  to  be  left 
until  after  amalgamation,  then  for  the  general  membership  to 
decide  by  referendum." 

With  the  ratification  of  this  agreement  and  of  the  new 
constitution,  the  clothing  workers  were  finally  freed  from 
the  bonds  of  an  unrepresentative  and  outworn  organization. 
The  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  of  America  had  now 
become  a  reality  in  name  as  well  as  in  fact,  and  under  new 
leadership  made  its  formal  entry  into  the  American  Labor 
Movement. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  STRIKE  OF  1915 

The  settlement  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  in  1911 
left  the  rest  of  the  Chicago  clothing  market  unorganized. 
From  then  until  the  final  victory  in  1919  vigorous  and  con- 
tinued effort  was  made  by  the  Chicago  clothing  workers' 
union  to  organize  the  unorganized  shops.  For  those  who 
returned  to  work  in  1911  under  non-union  conditions,  the 
outcome  of  the  1910  strike  was  not  a  defeat  but  merely  an 
interruption  in  this  long  battle  that  was  to  last  eight  years. 
From  time  to  time,  organization  activity  was  carried  on 
with  increased  energy.  In  1913,  for  example,  a  vigorous 
organization  campaign  that  had  its  fruits  was  conducted  by 
the  Chicago  union.  But  the  real  beginning  of  the  cam- 
paign came  in  1915,  after  the  break  from  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers,  with  the  initiation  by  the  Amalgamated 
Clothing  Workers  of  America  of  a  new  and  more  vigorous 
policy  of  organization  throughout  the  whole  country. 

Long  before  the  crisis  of  1915  was  precipitated,  the  non- 
union employers  in  the  clothing  industry  used  old  and  tried 
methods  in  combatting  organization  campaigns  of  the  union. 
The  system  of  blacklisting,  which  had  for  so  long  been 
popular  in  the  Chicago  clothing  industry,  was  conducted  in 
the  Medinah  Temple  as  before.  People  who  were  known 
to  have  joined  the  Union  could  not  in  any  circumstances  get 
jobs.    One  worker  testifies  as  follows: 

"  I  worked  for  Stein,  Bloch  &  Co.,  Rochester,  New  York,  and 
as  a  union  man  answered  the  call  of  a  general  strike  in  that  city 
for  the  eight-hour  day. 

"  Eleven  months  later,  the  strike  still  on  in  Rochester,  I  came 
to  Chicago  and  had  only  worked  four  weeks  when  a  general 
strike  was  called  there  which  was  soon  lost,  and  from  that  time 
to  the  present  the  workers  have  been  beaten  and  the  Employers' 
Association  has  been  in  the  saddle. 

"  After  the  strike  was  lost,  I  applied  to  different  firms  for  a 


96       CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

position  as  cutter  and  was  told  by  each  '  go  to  the  Medinah 
Temple  and  if  you  get  a  ticket  come  back  and  see  us.' 

"  Rosenwald  of  Rosenwald  and  Weil  told  me  to  go  over,  get 
a  ticket  and  come  back  to  work.  I  went  to  the  Medinah 
Temple  and  told  them  I  had  a  job  waiting.  I  was  rebuked  for 
not  coming  there  first,  told  that  Rosenwald  nor  anyone  else 
could  hire  help  without  consulting  the  Medinah  agency,  given 
the  third  degree,  then  told  there  were  several  ahead  of  me  who 
were  more  deserving,  and  anyway  they  had  to  investigate. 

"  I  didn't  get  the  job  at  Rosenwald  but  Martin  J.  Isaacs, 
real  head  of  the  Association,  told  me  they  had  received  word 
from  Rochester  that  I  had  gone  out  there  on  a  strike  and  he 
said  he  didn't  think  I  had  been  punished  enough  and  he  would 
not  have  me  in  any  of  their  houses.  I  appealed  to  him  in  the 
name  of  my  wife  and  baby  and  he  said  I  should  have  thought 
of  them  before  I  went  out  on  strike." 

As  early  as  March,  April  and  May,  1915,  workers  were 
discharged  for  joining  the  Union  and  in  some  cases  shops 
were  struck  in  protest  against  such  discharges.  This  gen- 
eral condition  continued  until  August,  1915,  when,  at  the 
meeting  of  the  General  Executive  Board  of  the  Amalga- 
mated Clothing  Workers  in  Baltimore,  it  was  decided  to 
initiate  a  country  wide  campaign  of  organization  with  the 
purpose  of  organizing  those  sections  of  the  industry  that 
still  remained  unorganized.  Of  these  non-union  sections, 
Chicago  was  of  course  one  of  the  most  important. 

On  September  14,  1915,  the  organization  campaign  in 
Chicago  was  formally  opened  by  a  mass  meeting  of  almost 
5,000  clothing  workers.  At  this  meeting  the  demands  on  the 
non-union  manufacturers  were  drawn  up  and  an  ultimatum 
issued  by  the  union  that  these  demands  must  be  conceded 
by  September  27th  or  their  employees  would  be  called  out 
on  a  general  strike.  On  September  16,  1915,  the  following 
demands  were  submitted  to  the  non-union  clothing  manu- 
facturers : 

1.  Forty-eight  (48)  hours  shall  constitute  a  week's  work, 
which  shall  be  divided  as  follows:  Eight  and  three-quarters 
hours  each  week  day,  except  Saturday,  and  on  Saturday  four 
and  one-half  hours  ending  at  12  o'clock  noon. 

2.  No  employee  shall  be  required  to  work  on  a  legal  holiday 


William  A.  Cunnea 


Bessie  Abramowitz 
(Mrs.  Sidney  Hillman) 


Jacob  S.  Pot  of  sky, 
Assistant  General   Secretary-Treasurer 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1915  97 

and  no  deduction  shall  be  made  from  the  pay  of  week  workers 
for  such  holidays. 

3.  All  overtime  shall  be  paid  at  the  rate  of  time  and  one-half. 

4.  An  increase  of  25  per  cent,  in  all  wages  and  earnings. 

5.  During  slack  and  dull  seasons,  work  shall  be  distributed 
as  equally  as  possible  among  all  the  workers. 

6.  Recognition  of  the  Union,  so  that  collective  bargaining 
may  be  established  and  maintained  in  the  industry. 

7.  No  employee  shall  be  discharged  without  cause  and  all 
fining  systems  shall  be  abolished,  as  well  as  all  blacklisting 
agencies  and  sub-contracting  in  the  shops. 

8.  Suitable  arbitration  machinery  shall  be  established  for 
the  adjustment  of  future  complaints. 

9.  The  minimum  scale  of  wages  for  week  workers  shall  be  as 
follows : 

Cutters,  $26  a  week. 

Trimmers,  $20  a  week. 

Examiners  and  Bushelmen,  $20  a  week. 

Apprentices,  $8  a  week. 

10.  Suitable  provision  shall  be  made  for  apprentices. 

11.  Any  contract  entered  into  shall  apply  to  all  contractors 
for  whose  faithful  observance  thereof  the  manufacturers  shall 
be  responsible." 

These  demands  of  the  union  the  clothing  manufacturers 
met  with  their  customary  contempt.  Martin  J.  Isaacs,  at- 
torney for  the  Wholesale  Clothiers'  Association,  character- 
ized the  demands  as  an  attempt  to  create  unrest  among  the 
working  classes. 

"  I  would  not  dignify  the  request  for  arbitration  of  differ- 
ences," he  said,  "  by  admitting  there  is  anything  to  arbitrate. 
Conditions  are  excellent  in  our  factories,  the  wages  are  all  that 
are  desired  and  the  workers  are  satisfied  and  willing  to  stay  at 
their  posts  if  only  they  are  left  alone.  If,  however,  labor 
agents  keep  haranguing  them  on  the  theory  that  they  are  not 
well  treated  and  publicity  is  given  to  such  a  campaign,  then 
the  workers  may  become  convinced  that  they  are  entitled  to 
something  better  and  walk  out. 

**  In  case  there  is  a  strike,  the  employees  simply  will  have  to 
return  to  work  under  the  old  conditions,  because  we  will,  not 
recognize  the  organization  making  the  demands  nor  any  of  its 
officials.  We  know  that  the  great  majority  of  the  employees  do 
not  believe  in  the  Union  or  its  leaders.  The  employers  refuse 
to  be  frightened.     They  do  not  take  strike  threats  seriously." 


98      ;  CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

This,  in  substance,  was  the  attitude  of  the  great  bulk  of 
the  manufacturers.  The  workers,  however,  thought  differ- 
ently about  the  matter.  Even  before  the  date  of  the  ulti- 
matum had  expired  shop  strikes  were  occurring  throughout 
the  city  and  both  the  national  and  local  officers  of  the  organi- 
zation used  every  possible  effort  to  keep  the  workers  in  the 
shop  imtil  a  strike  was  found  unavoidable. 

It  soon  became  clear  that  the  manufacturers  would  refuse 
to  negotiate  with  the  union  or  to  submit  the  union's  demands 
to  arbitration.  Even  before  September  27th  they  had 
already  requested  police  protection  for  their  factories,  and, 
as  in  aU  past  strikes  in  Chicago,  the  police  responded.  Chief 
Healy  announced  that  "  parades  and  demonstrations  of  the 
strikers  will  be  prevented.  Captains  have  received  orders 
to  halt  any  street  speeches  or  large  gatherings.  Details  of 
patrolmen  and  mounted  police  will  be  stationed  in  the  im- 
mediate vicinity  of  all  clothing  houses.  The  manufacturers 
will  be  given  the  same  police  protection  that  any  individual 
or  business  house  merits.  Though  I  do  not  expect  any  out- 
burst, I  am  not  taking  any  chances."  At  the  same  time 
President  Hillman  announced:  "  There  will  be  no  violence. 
Even  picketing  of  the  shops  will  not  be  undertaken.  Our 
union  is  strong  enough  not  to  require  this  move.  The  leaders 
of  each  shop  have  been  given  orders  to  walk  out  quietly. 
The  same  day  the  strike  began  we  called  out  four  thousand 
workers  from  the  shops  of  Royal  Tailors,  Lamm  &  Co., 
Fred  Kaufman  and  Alfred  Decker  &  Cohn."  Together  with 
the  strike  call  President  Hillman  made  the  following  state- 
ment: 

**  The  clothing  manufacturers  have  been  given  ample  oppor- 
tunity to  settle  this  controversy  amicably  and  have  denied  our 
request  for  a  conference.  Instead  of  meeting  us  in  a  spirit 
of  co-operation  to  work  out  an  agreement  such  as  is  now  in 
force  in  the  largest  clothing  establishment  in  the  city  they  have, 
through  their  paid  agents,  sought  to  ridicule  our  efforts  and 
belittle  our  organization.  Organized  in  strong  associations 
and  speaking  as  a  unit  through  a  chosen  representative,  the 
clothing  manufacturers  have  denied  to  their  workers  the  priv- 
ilege which  they  claim  and  exercise  for  themselves. 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1915  99 

"  We  have  been  forced  into  this  fight  by  the  uncompromising 
attitude  of  our  employers  and  we  are  in  it  to  stay  until  the 
clothing  workers  are  accorded  a  voice  in  fixing  their  wages  and 
working  conditions.  We  are  willing  to  rest  the  justice  of  our 
position  with  the  public  or  submit  to  any  fair  board  of  arbitra- 
tion. The  employers  refuse  to  arbitrate  so  the  workers  are 
compelled  to  fight." 

By  September  29th  the  fight  was  on  and  25,000  men  and 
women  were  on  strike.  The  police  continued  their  anti-union 
activities.  President  Hillman  announced  in  the  Chicago 
newspapers  that  a  captain  of  police  was  seen  in  Mr.  Isaacs' 
office  on  Wednesday  afternoon.  "  I  presimie  he  went  there 
to  receive  his  instructions.  The  clothing  manufacturers  have 
refused  to  meet  us  or  to  arbitrate  our  claims  and  they  evi- 
dently expect  to  crush  us  through  the  Police  Department. 
I  issued  instructions  to  our  people  to  observe  the  law  and 
from  all  the  reports  I  have  received  they  have  kept  within 
their  rights  as  law  abiding  citizens.  In  spite  of  that,  mounted 
policemen  have  run  their  horses  on  to  the  sidewalks  among 
our  women  and  girls,  motorcycle  pohcemen  have  clubbed 
our  girls  and  have  committed  acts  of  brutality  that  are  a 
disgrace.  One  of  our  men  was  shot  by  an  employer,  and 
from  the  statements  of  eye  witnesses  the  attack  was  entirely 
unprovoked  and  uncalled  for."  Miss  Mary  McDermott, 
an  investigator  for  Mrs.  Louise  Osborne  Rowe  of  the  Public 
Welfare  Department,  made  an  investigation  of  alleged 
police  attacks  during  the  day  and  reported  numbers  of  cases 
in  which  men  and  women  had  been  roughly  handled  by  the 
police.  The  tactics  of  the  police  had  become  so  vicious  that 
President  Hillman  led  a  delegation  including  John  Fitz- 
patrick,  Edward  Nockels,  Mary  McDowell,  Agnes  Nestor, 
Victor  Olander,  Ellen  Gates  Starr,  St.  John  Tucker  and 
Luke  Grant  to  present  the  case  of  the  strikers  to  Mayor 
Thompson.  The  Mayor  was  "  too  busy  "  to  see  the  dele- 
gation, but  his  secretary  told  Mr.  Hillman  that  the  Mayor 
had  sent  word  to  Chief  Healy  "  to  stop  the  unnecessary  in- 
terference on  the  part  of  the  police.  The  Mayor  told  the 
Chief  to  keep  the  police  neutral." 

Police  brutality  did  not,  however,  cease  with  this  promise 


100      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  neutrality  by  the  Mayor  and  at  the  beginning  of  October 
Alderman  John  C.  Kennedy  decided  to  present  to  the  City 
Council  evidence  of  the  police  activities  and  to  demand  an 
investigation.  An  investigating  committee  was  appointed 
under  the  chairmanship  of  Alderman  Henry  Utpatel.  At 
the  hearings  of  this  committee  President  Hillman,  John 
Fitzpatrick  and  Edward  N.  Nockels  of  the  Chicago  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  all  announced  the  willingness  of  the  workers 
to  arbitrate  their  differences  with  the  employers,  but  the 
employers  were  obdurate.  Martin  J.  Isaacs,  their  attorney, 
had  already  refused  to  confer  with  Attorney  Jacob  G.  Gross- 
berg  of  the  State  Board  of  Arbitration  concerning  mediation 
in  the  strike.  Finally  the  employers  declined  to  meet  the 
committee  of  the  City  Council.  A  letter  from  the  Presi- 
dents of  the  National  Wholesale  Tailors'  Association  and 
of  the  Wholesale  Clothiers'  Association  stated  "  that  only  a 
comparatively  small  number  of  employees  were  not  work- 
ing and  these  on  account  of  fear  of  intimidation  and 
violence."  "  The  present  trouble,"  the  letter  stated,  "  was 
due  to  interference  of  professional  agitators  from  an  outside 
market.  The  prices  paid  to  workers  and  the  hours  of  work 
in  the  houses  of  these  associations,  according  to  available 
statistics,  are  better  than  in  any  competitive  market."  "  The 
employers  stand  firmly  for  the  open  shop  principle,"  said 
Mr.  William  M.  Cahn.  "  In  any  pleadings  they  may  have 
with  the  Aldermen  they  will  not  discuss  the  question  of 
arbitration,  mediation  or  compromise.  We  intend  to  main- 
tain the  open  shop." 

Finally,  on  October  16,  1915,  the  representatives  of  the 
clothing  manufacturers  met  the  aldermanic  committee  in 
the  oflSce  of  Acting-Mayor  WilHam  R.  Morehouse  and  in- 
formed him  and  the  Alderman  that  they  were  not  interested 
in  proposals  for  arbitration. 

The  efforts  to  obtain  a  peaceful  settlement  of  the  strike 
were  still  continued,  however,  not  only  by  the  union  but 
by  disinterested  and  sympathetic  citizens  of  Chicago.  Six- 
teen prominent  Chicago  women  including  Grace  Abbott, 
Mary  McDowell,   Mrs.  Medill  McCormick,  Ellen   Gates 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1915  101 

Starr,  and  Sophonisba  Breckenridge  wrote  to  the  Mayor  in 
an  attempt  to  enlist  his  support  toward  arbitrating  the  strike. 

"  It  has  been  shown,"  they  wrote,  "  that  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  Chief  Healy's  orders  to  the  police  were  to  avoid  all  un- 
necessary violence,  one  girl  was  beaten  so  severely  that  her 
breast  bone  was  fractured;  others  have  been  hit  on  the  head 
and  body  so  that  they  carried  the  marks  for  days.  Still  other 
strikers  have  been  seriously  injured  by  private  detectives  in  the 
employ  of  the  manufacturers  in  the  presence  of  the  police  with- 
out interference  on  the  part  of  the  latter.  The  affidavits  as  to 
these  instances  have  been  presented  to  the  City  Council  and  are 
a  matter  of  record.     The  trials  are  called  for  next  week. 

"  The  strikers  repeatedly  have  stated  through  their  agent, 
Mr.  Hillman,  that  they  will  go  back  to  work  and  submit  their 
demands  to  arbitration  the  moment  the  manufacturers  agree  to 
do  so.  The  manufacturers,  on  the  other  hand,  have  not  only 
refused  to  make  any  statement  of  their  position  to  members  of 
this  Committee  but  have  even  refused  to  appear  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  Aldermen  appointed  by  the  City  Council  to  investigate 
the  strike,  merely  sending  a  representative  to  say  that,  as  they 
could  not  be  legally  compelled  to  appear,  they  decline  to  do  so. 

"  In  view  of  these  facts,  and  in  view  of  the  magnificent  record 
made  by  Chicago  through  you  in  the  last  six  months  in  this 
matter  of  a  peaceful  settlement  of  industrial  disputes,  we  earn- 
estly urge  you  to  take  whatever  steps  may  be  possible  to  settle 
the  present  one,  and,  by  signing  the  Council  order  to  Chief 
Healy,  by  offering  yourself  as  an  arbitrator,  or  by  any  other 
means  that  may  seem  to  you  advisable,  prevent  our  relapse  into 
the  old  evil  days  of  labor  wars,  days  which  we  had  hoped  after 
your  success  in  handling  the  great  strikes  of  the  early  summer 
were  gone  forever.*' 

The  Mayor  found,  however,  that  he  could  not  accede  to  this 
request. 

The  strike  continued.  The  strikers  marched  in  monster 
parades.  The  Council  Committee  on  Police  adopted  a  re- 
port, drawn  up  by  Alderman  Buck,  censuring  the  Police 
Department  for  considering  strikers  at  any  time  its  natural 
enemies.  Acting  Chief  of  Police  Schuettler  agreed  to  the 
immediate  removal  of  special  policemen  from  clothing  fac- 
tories affected  by  the  strike.  On  October  26th  Samuel  Kap- 
per,  one  of  the  strikers,  was  shot  and  killed  and  a  large  num- 
ber of  others  wounded  in  a  riot  at  Harrison  and  Halsted 


102     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

streets.    More  than  ten  thousand  striking  garment  workers 
paid  their  tribute  at  the  funeral  to  this  hero  of  the  strike. 

Attempts  to  arbitrate  were  again  made.  A  comm'ittee 
of  business  men  and  social  workers,  headed  by  Miss  Jane 
Addams,  decided  to  make  a  last  plea  to  the  Mayor.  The 
committee  appeared  before  Mayor  Thompson  and  asked  him 
to  become  chairman  of  an  arbitration  board  to  settle  the 
strike.  "  We  thought,"  said  Miss  Addams,  "  that  if  you 
could  be  induced  to  take  a  hand  in  the  matter  we  would  be 
able  to  bring  some  sort  of  order  out  of  chaos."  The  Mayor, 
however,  still  remained  obdiu-ate.  "  The  Mayor  of  the  city 
of  Chicago,"  he  said,  "  will  not  go  into  this  because  there  is 
violence  and  as  the  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  he  will  stay 
out  of  it  because  there  is  violence."  In  the  same  way  ended 
all  attempts  to  enlist  the  support  of  the  Mayor  of  the  city 
of  Chicago. 

The  strike  of  1915  was  significant  for  the  many  features 
that  characterized  it.  The  most  important  of  these  was  the 
attitude  of  the  police  toward  the  strikers  and  the  efforts  of 
the  Aldermen  Buck,  Kennedy  and  Rodriguez  to  make  public 
the  effects  of  police  mismanagement  and  to  remedy  the  situa- 
tion. The  Aldermanic  hearings  on  the  activities  of  the 
police  uncovered  practices  that  had  never  been  suspected  by 
the  citizens  of  Chicago.  First  Deputy  Schuettler  admitted 
at  the  public  hearing  that  the  police  department  employed 
spies  and  secret  agents.  "  There  are  agents  of  the  police 
department,"  he  said,  "  who  give  us  information  and  have 
done  so  for  years.  I  defy  this  committee  to  compel  me  to 
reveal  their  names.  I  will  resign  my  position  sooner  than 
do  it."  The  assistant  corporation  counsel  advised  the  police 
department  that  it  need  not  give  the  information  to  the 
committee.  Alderman  Buck,  in  a  splendid  fight  against  this 
autocratic  use  of  a  public  police  department,  said:  "  I  for 
one  want  to  know  whether  there  are  secret  agents  of  the 
police  attending  these  meetings  and  why  they  are  doing  it. 
The  same  argument  was  made  when  the  question  of  the 
police  *  squeal '  book  being  exposed  was  discussed.     In  my 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1915  103 

opinion  this  secrecy  about  the  inside  workings  of  the  police 
department  is  all  bunk."  A  similar  attack  was  made  by 
Buck  and  his  associates  in  the  council  against  the  use  of 
special  police  during  the  strike  and  a  resolution  was  adopted 
calling  for  their  removal  from  the  sidewalks  in  front  of  or 
in  the  vicinity  of  plants  affected  by  the  strike.  The  vigor 
and  persistence  of  the  council  investigation  into  police 
methods  during  the  strike  had  a  permanent  and  useful  influ- 
ence in  that  it  focussed  pubHc  attention  on  police  abuses, 
which  had  developed  in  secrecy  and  of  which  the  public  was 
ignorant. 

The  strike  of  1915,  like  all  strikes  of  the  Chicago  cloth- 
ing workers,  enlisted  to  an  unusual  degree  the  support  of 
public-spirited  citizens.  Nor  did  their  support  consist  only 
in  offering  advice  and  in  lending  moral  succor.  They  stood 
day  after  day  on  the  picket  line;  marched  in  the  union 
parades ;  distributed  circulars ;  raised  money  for  the  strikers ; 
carried  on  campaigns  to  force  arbitration  and  peaceful  ad- 
justment of  the  issues  that  had  precipitated  the  strike,  and 
in  every  way  contributed  toward  the  support  of  the  strikers 
and  toward  presenting  the  facts  of  the  fight  to  the  public. 
The  value  of  the  services  of  such  women  during  the  strike 
as  Ellen  Gates  Starr,  Mrs.  Raymond  Robins,  Jane  Addams, 
AmeMa  Sears,  Mrs.  Lillie,  Mrs.  John  Furie,  Grace  Abbott, 
and  others,  was  incalculable.  Without  almost  a  single  im- 
portant exception  the  sympathy  of  the  public  leaned  to  the 
side  of  the  workers  and  had  its  effect  in  weakening  and  un- 
dermining the  morale  of  obstinate  employers.  The  weight 
of  public  opinion,  indefinable  and  hard  to  estimate,  neverthe- 
less had  in  the  long  run  its  influence. 

Organized  labor,  likewise,  in  Chicago  did  not  refuse  to 
share  its  responsibility  in  the  strike.  As  in  1910,  John  Fitz- 
patrick  and  Ed  Nockels  stood  in  every  way  behind  the 
strikers.  When,  in  the  course  of  the  strike,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  and  United  Garment  Workers  issues 
were  raised,  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  everyone's  atten- 
tion from  the  real  issues,  both  Fitzpatrick  and  Nockels 
unequivocally  and  emphatically  urged  the  support  of  the 


104     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

members  of  the  Amalgamated.  The  attack  by  Nockels  and 
Fitzpatrick  on  Martin  J.  Isaacs,  the  manufacturers'  attorney 
and  director  of  the  blackhsting  bureau  in  the  Medinah 
Temple,  left  no  doubt  as  to  where  they  stood.  "  He  has 
sweated  and  gouged  garment  workers,"  said  Fitzpatrick, 
"  and  brow-beaten  customers,  has  always  been  victorious  and 
able  to  turn  to  his  employers  with  a  smile  and  say  '  I  have 
delivered  you  again.'  " 

Throughout  the  strike  public  intervention  had  been  a  dis- 
mal failure.  Attempts  to  force  mediation  or  arbitration  of 
differences,  urged  by  club  women,  Jane  Addams,  the  State 
Board  of  Mediation,  the  Aldermanic  Committee  and  sup- 
ported by  Hillman  and  his  associates,  were  every  time  re- 
jected by  the  employers  and  greeted  by  specious  and  evasive 
statements  from  Mayor  Thompson.  The  strikers  were  will- 
ing to  arbitrate;  newspapers  urged  public  mediation;  all 
classes  of  citizens  proposed  plan  after  plan  for  peaceful  ad- 
justment. But  employers  and  city  authorities  alone  re- 
mained adamant. 

So  the  strike  had  to  go  on.  On  December  12,  1915,  the 
strike  was  called  off.  It  was  not  lost.  Workers  returned  to 
their  shops  not  as  unorganized  men  and  women  but  as  mem- 
bers of  the  union.  Although  the  union  was  not  recognized, 
the  employers  were  forced  by  the  strength  of  the  organization 
to  make  important  concessions  to  those  who  had  returned  to 
work.  The  stopping  of  the  strike  was  only  a  breathing  spell 
in  the  struggle  for  organization.  In  1916  the  fight  broke  out 
in  a  city- wide  strike  of  the  cutters.  This  lilvcwise  did  not 
end  in  formal  recognition ;  but  cutters  returned  to  the  shops, 
receiving  advantages  which  could  only  come  to  those  whose 
strength  was  realized  by  the  employers.  Recognition  was 
now  only  a  question  of  time;  and  it  came  in  1919. 

The  strike  of  1915  was  from  the  employers'  angle  a  futile 
engagement.  It  was  an  expensive  postponement  of  the  day 
of  peace  and  recognition.  Through  it  all  one  wise  and  ex- 
perienced observer  of  industrial  strife  and  peace,  watched 
the  proceedings  and  recorded  his  observations.    At  the  time 


15,000  Striking  Chicago  Clothing  Workers  on  Parade  October  12,  1915 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1915  105 

they  had  no  more  than  an  indirect  influence.  In  retrospect, 
however,  the  following  comments  from  the  pen  of  J.  E.  Wil- 
liams, then  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx,  lend  a  significance  to  the  events  of 
1915  which  a  bare  recital  of  its  incidents  cannot  yield: 

"  In  the  Trenches, 

«  Chicago,  Nov.  19,  1915. 

"  The  clothing  workers'  strike  is  now  on  its  eighth  week,  with 
no  visible  signs  of  ending.  The  dead-lock  is  as  complete  as  that 
on  the  French  frontier.  Both  sides  have  dug  themselves  in,  and 
the  war  seems  to  have  settled  down  to  attrition  and  endurance. 
Not  alone  in  dogged  obstinacy  does  this  industrial  war  compare 
with  that  in  Europe;  for  in  strategy,  in  generalship,  in  the 
fighting  spirit  of  rank  and  file,  the  Chicago  battle  will  compare 
in  its  degree,  with  the  titanic  struggle  in  the  Old  World. 

"  Strikes  there  have  been  before  in  the  garment  industry,  and 
they  have  been  fierce,  violent,  and  hotly  contested;  but  there 
has  been  none  like  this  in  organization,  management,  and,  in 
the  thoroughly  planned  and  scientific  efficiency  of  campaign. 
Previous  strikes  have  been  spontaneous  uprisings  of  an 
aggrieved  and  infuriated  populace,  ruled  by  the  mob  spirit, 
with  little  or  no  leadership,  with  less  plan  or  method.  The  pres- 
ent strike  was  planned  with  a  coolness  and  thoroughness  com- 
parable to  that  of  the  general  staff  in  Germany.  Although  the 
hand  of  the  general  was  forced  rather  prematurely,  yet  the  war 
with  the  anti-union  manufacturers  of  Chicago  had  long  been 
regarded  as  inevitable,  and  there  was  no  lack  of  preparedness 
on  part  of  the  union.  Organization  had  been  perfected  with 
each  factory  as  a  unit,  and  in  charge  of  each  factory  group 
was  placed  a  chairman,  who  was  made  responsible  for  his 
people.  Over  the  chairmen  were  placed  district  leaders,  over 
these  department  commanders,  and  above  all  the  chief  general- 
issimo. President  Sidney  Hillman. 

Weli.  Drilled  Army. 

"  When  the  strike  was  called  the  general  found  himself  in 
command  of  a  well  drilled,  thoroughly  officered,  army.  He 
could  give  a  command  from  his  headquarters  in  the  LaSalle 
Hotel,  and  instantly  the  general  staff  at  Hod  Carriers  Hall 
would  transmit  it  to  the  eager  and  expectant  chairmen  on  the 
north,  south,  and  west  sides,  who  would  put  the  order  into  exe- 
cution on  the  second. 

"  Thus  it  is  that  the  movement  is  able  to  conduct  itself  with 


106     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

such  solidarity  and  precision.  Everything  in  the  campaign  is 
foreseen,  nothing  is  left  to  chance,  and  the  eighth  week  finds  the 
union  hosts  in  better  fighting  trim  than  at  the  beginning  of  the 
strike.  If  the  Joint  Board,  which  is  the  name  of  the  General 
Staff,  were  to  deem  it  advisable  to  call  off  the  strike  tomorrow  it 
would  be  done  deliberately,  forethoughtedly,  and  the  retreat 
would  be  accomplished  and  in  good  order.  Like  the  overpowered 
armies  of  Europe  they  would  retire  to  a  more  favorable  position, 
only  to  renew  the  battle  as  soon  as  more  munitions  were  obtained. 

No  Reteeat  in  Sight. 

"  But  there  is  no  sign  of  a  retreat  as  yet.  General  Hillman 
assures  me  his  lines  are  still  intact,  that  supplies  of  munitions 
are  coming  in  steadily,  and  unless  the  unforseen  happens  to  his 
supphes  he  can  hold  the  fort  for  another  ten  or  twelve  weeks. 
He  admits,  however,  that  the  demand  on  the  treasury  is  increas- 
ing. It  is  costing  about  $20,000  a  week  to  run  the  strike,  and 
when  it  is  remembered  the  battle  was  begun  with  an  empty 
treasury,  and  its  cost  has  been  borne  largely  by  garment  work- 
ers not  on  strike,  it  will  be  seen  the  financing  of  the  campaign 
has  been  phenomenal.  It  is  the  stress  of  this  need  which  now 
brings  Miss  Jane  Addams  and  her  colleagues  to  the  front  in 
an  effort  to  raise  $10,000  a  week  to  help  carry  on  the  strike. 

Manufacturers  Stand  Pat. 

*'  It  may  be  asked  what  the  associated  manufacturers  are 
doing  on  their  side  of  the  trenches. 

*'  So  far  as  can  be  known,  they  are  simply  standing  pat. 
Silently,  relentlessly,  inscrutably,  like  the  sphinx,  they  defy 
every  attempt  to  make  them  speak.  Approached  by  judges, 
city  officials,  state  arbitrators,  eminent  citizens,  their  attitude 
is  always  the  same — silence.  Deaf  to  importunities  of  press  or 
representatives  of  the  social  welfare,  their  voiceless  lips  seem 
to  give  out  only  the  old  answer — '  the  public  be  damned.' 

"  And  yet,  through  the  aid  of  a  friendly  intermediary,  I  have 
been  able  to  penetrate  this  screen  of  silence,  and  to  hear  the 
explanation  that  some  of  the  more  conscientious  manufacturers 
give  of  their  obduracy.     It  runs  something  like  this : 

"  *  We  regard  Sidney  Hillman  very  highly.  We  believe  him 
honest,  high-minded,  and  capable.  But  we  don't  believe  he 
can  control  his  people.  It  is  notorious  that  union  leaders  in 
the  garment  trade  are  short-lived;  they  kill  each  other  off. 
With  Hillman  dead  or  dethroned  we  should  be  back  in  the  hands 
of  the  old  grafting  pirates,  who  would  not  enforce  an 
agreement,  who  would  foment  shop  strikes  for  the  purpose  of 


THE  STRIKE  OF  1915  |     107 

extorting  money  out  of  us,  who  would  destroy  the  quality  of 
our  work,  which  has  cost  us  so  much  to  build  up,  who  would,  in 
short,  make  life  a  hell  to  us  and  either  drive  us  out  of  busi- 
ness or  into  insane  asylums.' 

Give  Hillman  a  Chance. 

"  I  repeated  this  story  to  the  little  general,  and  he  replied 
laconically : 

"  *  Why  don't  they  give  Hillman  a  chance.?' 

"  And  that  is  the  only  answer.  Whether  Hillman  can  control 
his  lieutenants  and  his  people  can  only  be  determined  by  experi- 
ment. 

"  I  believe  he  can.  Why  do  I  believe  it.^*  Because  I  have 
worked  side  by  side  with  him  for  several  years,  dealing  with  just 
such  questions  as  these  manufacturers  will  have  to  face.  In  no 
instance  have  I  seen  him  fail  to  control  his  officers  or  his  people, 
and  there  have  been  plenty  of  cases  in  which  he  has  had  to 
report  unwelcome  findings.  Yet  he  has  never  flinched,  never 
failed  to  courageously  face  his  comrades  with  unpleasant  facts 
and  never  has  failed  to  win  their  approval  and  loyalty.  I  have 
just  received  a  private  letter  from  one  of  the  greatest  generals 
on  the  opposite  side  who  has  worked  with  Mr.  Hillman  in  much 
bigger  situations  than  this.     It  contains  this  statement: 

"  '  Too  bad  Friend  Hillman  bumped  against  such  a  tough 
proposition,  but  in  time  his  work  will  be  understood,  and  the 
manufacturers  will  be  ready  to  treat  with  him.' 

Plenty  of  Othee  Leaders. 

"  To  be  sure  all  this  relates  only  to  Hillman.  But  he  is  not 
alone  in  the  movement.  He  has  scores  of  colleagues  imbued 
with  the  same  ideals  as  himself,  just  as  eager  as  he  to  have 
right  principles  and  practices  prevail  in  the  industry.  All  of 
them  are  products  of  the  new  spirit  in  trade-unionism,  men  who 
regard  it  as  the  inevitable  first  step  in  the  great  movement 
toward  industrial  democracy  and  industrial  peace.  These  men 
are  far-sighted  enough  to  know  the  inevitable  limitations  of  th^ 
prevailing  wage  system,  who  have  self-restraint  enough  to  ac- 
cept and  make  the  best  of  it  while  it  is  here,  who  may  work  for 
the  coming  of  the  co-operative  commonwealth  in  some  happier 
day,  but  who  do  not  expect  it  to  co-exist  side  by  side  with  the 
competitive  system  here  and  now.  These  men  may  be  depended 
on  to  hold  down  the  wilder  spirits  in  the  ranks,  who  may  be 
tempted  to  rush  the  movement  over  some  suicidal  precipice. 


108      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

The  Impartial  Third  Man. 

"  But  honesty  and  rationality  does  not  depend  so  much  on 
accident  of  leadership  as  formerly.  The  mechanism  of  the 
trade  agreement  has  been  so  improved  that  the  crooked  walking 
delegate  has  no  longer  any  chance  to  graft.  The  introduction 
of  the  impartial  third  man  as  umpire  shears  him  of  his  power 
of  mischief.  He  can  no  longer  order  a  stoppage  and  hold  up 
his  employer  for  graft  to  call  it  off.  Under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion all  grievances  must  be  brought  before  the  joint  board,  and 
there  is  no  power  left  in  the  hands  of  the  business  agent  to 
make  trouble.  Neither  need  there  be  any  misgivings  about 
quality  of  work.  I  have  it  on  the  highest  authority  that  the 
quality  of  work  was  never  so  high  in  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx 
as  right  now — and  that  after  five  years  of  co-operation  with  the 
union. 

"  With  these  facts  so  obvious  and  so  easily  demonstrated  why 
does  the  association  continue  to  shut  its  eyes  and  ears  and  to 
play  the  sphinx? 

**  There  seems  no  answer  except  an  unreasoning  timidity,  or 
a  sheer,  wilful,  obstinacy  and  pride  of  mastery. 

"  They  will  be  up  against  it  next  season  again,  or  the  season 
after  that. 

"  Why  not  settle  now?" 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE     ORGANIZATION     OF     THE     CHICAGO 

MARKET 

The  organization  of  the  Chicago  market  in  the  spring  of 
1919  was  a  great  historic  achievement  for  the  Amalgamated 
Clothing  Workers.  For  nine  years  Chicago  had  been  the 
apparently  unconquerable  fortress  of  the  clothing  manufac- 
turers and  of  all  the  forces  that  opposed  the  union  and  its  pur- 
poses. Chicago  was  the  last  of  the  big  markets  to  withstand 
the  union  and  with  its  surrender  the  Amalgamated  became  a 
great  national  organization.  The  entire  period  from  the 
loss  of  the  1910  strike  to  the  signing  of  the  market  agree- 
ment in  1919  was  in  reality  one  continuous  campaign  for 
organization,  sometimes  flourishing,  sometimes  discourag- 
ingly  feeble,  but  never  ceasing.  It  was  the  work  of  these 
years  and  the  foundations  that  they  laid,  that  made  the  great 
campaign  successful.  One  of  the  general  organizers  said 
of  the  1919  campaign: 

"  It  is  plainly  seen  that  the  attack  of  1919  was  made  by 
veterans,  and  that  the  fruits  of  the  campaign  were  the  accumu- 
lated results  of  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  ten  years  of 
constant  endeavors." 

The  loss  of  the  1910  strike  had  been  followed  by  a  black 
period  for  the  clothing  workers.  The  real  resumption  of 
the  work  of  organization  began  in  1914  after  the  birth  of  the 
Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  of  America.  The  general 
strike  of  1915  apparently  left  the  workers  not  much  better 
off  as  far  as  strength  of  organization  or  working  conditions 
were  concerned;  nevertheless,  it  had  important  moral  results. 
The  failure  of  this  strike  was  followed  in  1916  by  a  strike 
of  cutters,  which  while  also  apparently  a  failure,  stimulated 
the  work  of  organization  and  prepared  the  ground  for  the 
great  drive  of  1918-19.    The  success  of  the  Hart,  Schaffner 


110     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

and  Marx  agreement  and  the  publicity  given  to  the  gains 
of  their  workers  contributed  much  to  the  growing  dissatis- 
faction among  workers  in  the  Association  houses.  In  fact, 
again  and  again,  the  Association  houses  were  forced  to  grant 
concessions  in  wages  or  hours  in  order  to  hold  their  workers 
and  continue  to  compete  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx. 
Just  before  the  active  drive  began,  the  manufacturers,  hop- 
ing to  weaken  the  campaign  before  it  began,  granted  in- 
creases of  10  per  cent,  to  all  workers.  Finally,  the  Executive 
Board  of  the  national  organization  decided  on  an  intensive 
campaign  to  organize  the  whole  of  the  Chicago  market.  The 
campaign  started  officially  in  April,  1918,  under  the  irajne- 
diate  direction  of  the  leaders  of  the  Chicago  Joint  Board. 
For  purposes  of  organization,  Chicago  was  divided  into  dis- 
tricts as  follows:  northwest  side,  west  side  and  downtown 
districts,  the  "  Loop,"  and  southwest  side;  a  staff  of  organ- 
izers was  assigned  to  each  of  these  districts  and  a  special 
staff  to  the  cutters  and  trimmers. 

The  campaign  opened  with  a  lively  distribution  of  or- 
ganization leaflets  and  circulars  printed  in  all  languages. 
The  resolution  passed  in  May,  1918,  by  the  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx  workers,  donating  one  week's  increases  granted 
them  by  the  firm  for  the  organization  of  the  other  Chicago 
workers,  was  printed  in  several  languages  and  distributed  to 
workers  in  the  unorganized  shops. 

An  important  aspect  of  the  campaign,  and  one  that  made 
itself  felt  almost  at  once,  was  the  influence  of  the  war  and 
of  the  Government  policy  in  the  uniform  shops.  The  ulti- 
mate effect  of  this  policy  was  to  help  the  union  by  bringing 
to  light  and  removing  the  most  unfair  accusations  that  the 
employers  sought  to  make  against  it.  The  Federal  War 
Labor  Board  laid  down  the  principles  of  collective  bargain- 
ing for  the  guidance  of  the  Administrator  of  Labor 
Standards.  These  principles  recognized  the  right  of 
workers  to  organize  and  bargain  collectively  and  prohibited 
discrimination  against  workers  by  reason  of  their  member- 
ship in  labor  organizations  or  of  their  participation  in  union 
activities.     The  union  took  it  upon    itself    to    inform   the 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       111 

workers  of  their  rights  to  organize  under  Government  regu- 
lations and,  when  the  employers  resisted  their  right  to  do 
so,  took  the  grievances  of  the  workers  to  the  Administration 
of  Labor  Standards  for  adjustment.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  these  cases  was  the  John  Hall  Uniform  Factory- 
case,  in  which  the  firm  had  discharged  the  *'  agitators  "  who 
attempted  to  organize  their  shop  in  June,  1918.  So  keen 
was  the  spirit  among  the  workers  that  they  wanted  to  strike 
at  once  to  compel  reinstatement.  President  Hillman,  how- 
ever, wired  the  War  Department  asking  that  arrangements 
be  made  for  the  adjustment  of  the  grievances  and  in  the 
meantime  instructed  the  workers  not  to  strike.  Conferences 
were  held  and  the  grievances  eventually  satisfactorily 
settled.  Those  who  had  been  discharged  were  reinstated, 
wages  were  readjusted  after  a  thorough  investigation,  and 
the  employers  were  ordered  to  deal  with  the  organization  of 
their  employees  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  War 
Labor  Board.  Several  other  firms  were  charged  with  vio- 
lating the  Government  war  labor  program  by  discharging 
workers  because  of  their  union  membership  or  activity.  The 
charges  were  investigated  and  proved  to  be  true.  Under 
pressiu'e  of  the  Administrator,  one  of  the  firms,  which  had 
discharged  eight  representatives  elected  by  their  fellow- 
employees  to  serve  on  a  committee,  reinstated  these  workers 
with  back  pay,  recognized  the  shop  committee,  and  agreed 
to  the  other  demands  of  their  workers. 

A  similar  situation  occurred  in  the  Scotch  Woolen  Mills. 
After  a  long  strike,  the  firm  secured  a  sweeping  order  from 
Judge  Smith  enjoining  the  Amalgamated  from  picketing 
or  maintaining  pickets  at  or  near  the  premises  of  the  com- 
plainants or  along  routes  followed  by  employees  of  com- 
plainants in  going  to  and  from  their  business,  from  watching 
or  spying  on  places  of  business  or  employees,  or  those  going 
in  and  out,  or  seeking  to  do  business,  from  congregating 
near  places  of  business  or  employees  for  purposes  of  com- 
pelling, inducing,  or  soliciting  employees  to  leave  their  em- 
plojTnent,  or  to  attempt  in  any  way  to  induce  employees  to 
leave  their  employment.    But  when  the  Scotch  Woolen  Mills 


112     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

refused  to  appear  before  Prof.  Ripley  to  answer  the  charges 
against  it,  he  recommended  to  the  Quartermaster  General 
that  all  contracts  with  the  firm  be  withdrawn  until  the  firm 
agreed  to  appear.  This  was  done.  The  firm  of  Rosenwald 
and  Weil,  likewise,  had  discharged  the  entire  committee 
chosen  by  its  employees  and  then  refused  to  appear  before 
the  arbitrator.  All  the  workers  had  gone  on  strike  when  the 
second  committee  was  discharged,  but  for  two  weeks  the  firm 
held  out.  The  demands  of  the  workers  as  finally  arbitrated 
by  Professor  Ripley  included  the  48-hour  week,  with  time 
and  a  half  for  overtime,  double  pay  for  Sundays  and  no 
work  on  holidays;  recognition  of  the  shop  chairman  and 
shop  committee;  no  discrimination  for  membership  in  the 
Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers;  no  arbitrary  discharge; 
an  increase  of  30  per  cent,  to  all  workers ;  a  minimum  wage 
for  women  of  $14  and  for  all  operators  of  $24.  After  two 
weeks,  recognition  of  the  shop  chairman  and  shop  conunittee 
and  a  promise  of  no  discrimination  against  union  members 
were  granted.  The  rest  of  the  demands  were  submitted  to 
arbitration. 

In  the  meantime  the  work  of  organization  was  proceeding 
with  vigor.  One  of  the  earliest  successful  mass  meetings  in 
the  campaign  was  held  in  June,  1918,  and  added  400  new 
members  to  the  ranks  of  the  organization.  The  inauguration 
of  the  campaign  brought  on  the  usual  program  of  opposition, 
misrepresentation  in  the  press,  and  court  injunctions.  Two 
organizers  and  President  KroU  of  Local  61  were  arrested 
near  factories  which  they  were  trying  to  organize  for  dis- 
tributing literature  and  two  girls  were  arrested  the  same 
evening  for  speaking  to  non-union  workers  as  they  came  out 
of  the  factory. 

An  incident  that  occurred  early  in  the  campaign  illus- 
trates the  attitude  of  the  police. 

"  On  November  11,  1918,  Armistice  Day,  the  cutters  and 
trimmers  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  celebrating  the  cessa- 
tion of  war  in  Europe,  paraded  the  clothing  district  of  Chicago 
with  a  large  American  flag  and  the  red  banner  of  local  61  at 
their  head.     When  they  attempted  to  pass  the  Scotch  Woolen 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       113 

Mills  they  found  police  drawn  up  clear  across  the  street  for- 
bidding them  to  pass,  but  the  men  pressed  on.  In  the  scufiFle 
the  flag  dropped  low  and  an  officer  stepped  on  it,  and  when  his 
attention  was  called  to  what  he  had  done,  said :  *  To  hell  with 
the  flag.'  " 

When  that  was  heard  the  men  could  no  longer  be  held;  they 
swept  the  police  lines  aside  and  charged  on  the  doors  of  the 
factory.  It  was  these  men,  who  would  not  be  denied,  who 
carried  on  the  fight  for  years  in  Chicago. 

At  the  close  of  the  war  more  organization  circulars  were 
printed  and  distributed  in  great  numbers.  These  brought 
responses  from  the  employers  such  as  the  following: 

"  WOEKINGMEN,   WaKE  Up  !" 

"  You  were  induced  to  walk  out  by  the  organizers  of  the 
Amalgamated  Workers.  You  ignore  the  fact  that  your  only 
hope  for  prosperity  is  production.  Produce  more,  not  less,  if 
you  want  to  reduce  prices  *  *  *  Production  is  the  basis  o{ 
all  wealth    *     *    *    » 

Some  firms  attempted  to  appeal  to  workers  on  the  ground 
of  race  prejudice,  and  others  assured  the  workers  that  the 
money  they  paid  in  for  membership  dues  was  being  squan- 
dered by  their  leaders.  In  the  meantime  the  membership 
continued  to  grow,  thanks  to  the  effective  work  of  union 
members  not  on  the  staff,  as  well  as  by  the  organizers. 

Organizer  Kroll  who  was  in  charge  of  activities  of  the 
cutters  at  this  time  gives  an  idea  of  the  spirit  that  prevailed 
among  the  organization  workers: 

"  These  were  the  days  that  25,000  leaflets  would  be  distri- 
buted in  one  hour  in  the  mornings,  when  organizers  would  be 
arrested  for  just  talking  to  workers,  when  cards  calling  for  a 
shop  meeting  would  be  passed  out  in  the  morning  and  at  noon 
the  men  would  be  notified  that  they  would  find  more  money  in 
their  envelopes.  Firms  closed  their  factories  before  the  men 
went  out  on  strike  and  weeks  later  opened  them  again  and 
the  men  refused  to  return.  Cutters  would  be  sent  home  in 
machines  to  keep  the  organizers  away.  A  man  seen  talking  to. 
a  union  man  would  be  fired  the  next  day.  Sluggers  and  police 
were  used  in  front  of  the  factories  even  before  the  strikes  were 
on.     Banquets  were  given,  profit-sharing  and  bonuses   'A    la 


114     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Rockefeller  Foundation  '  were  proposed.     In  spite  of  all  of  this 
steady  progress  was  being  made. 

"  The  '  Floating  Cutter  '  came  in  at  this  stage  of  the  game. 
These  were  union  men  who  secured  jobs  in  non-union  shops, 
went  to  work  in  the  morning,  talked  unionism  at  noon  and  re- 
ceived a  full  week's  wages  and  a  discharge  in  the  evening: 
secured  another  job  the  next  day  and  went  through  the  same 
performance.  There  were  a  number  who  had  a  lucrative  pro- 
fession for  a  while." 

On  January  8,  1919,  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  estab- 
lished for  its  workers  the  44-hour  week.  This  action  forced 
the  non-union  manufacturers  to  move.  So  on  January  22 
the  Special  Order  Tailors  made  a  similar  announcement, 
and  one  week  later  the  Chicago  Clothiers'  Association  an- 
nounced the  44-hour  week  to  become  effective  in  all  of  their 
shops  on  April  28.  But  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers 
decided  that  the  44-hour  week  was  to  be  established  at  once — 
on  January  29th,  and  not  on  April  28th.  The  workers  of 
Kuppenheimer  &  Company,  in  accordance  Avith  the  decision, 
stopped  work  on  January  29th  at  4.30  instead  of  5.15  in  or- 
der to  attend  a  shop  meeting.  By  stopping  at  4.30.  they 
made  their  quitting  time  the  same  as  that  of  those  who  were 
working  a  44-hour  week.  At  the  shop  meeting  these  workers 
were  addressed  by  Levin,  who  instructed  them  to  return  to 
the  shop  the  next  morning,  as  usual,  and  to  leave  again  at 
4.30  to  attend  a  shop  meeting.  The  Amalgamated  Clothing 
Workers,  he  announced,  would  undertake  to  care  for  any 
workers  discharged  for  so  doing.  It  is  clear  that  this  step 
could  not  have  been  taken  had  not  the  organization  been 
fairly  complete  by  this  time. 

On  January  28,  Alfred,  Decker  &  Cohn  published  a  state- 
ment in  the  press  denying  that  they  were  offering  the  44- 
hour  week  to  their  employees,  but  at  the  same  time  printed 
circulars  were  appearing  which  included  a  promise  of  a  44- 
hour  week,  as  well  as  other  advantages,  provided  the  workers 
did  not  join  the  Union.  The  firm  thought  that  when  the 
workers  quit  at  4.30  it  was  a  strike  and  consulted  other  firms 
in  the  Association.  The  result  was  something  of  a  panic;  a 
hasty  change  was  made  in  the  notices  to  the  effect  that  the 


pm^ 

Officers  and  Members  Executive  Board  Coatmakers 
Local  39 


Officers  and  Members  Executive  Board    Cutters  and 
Trimmers  Local  61 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       115 

44-hoiir  week  would  be  established  on  January  30th.  This 
change  was  made  three  days  after  the  original  notice  was 
posted.  The  significance  of  this  victory  was  not  only  that 
approximately  32,000  workers  got  the  44-hour  week  on 
January  28th  instead  of  April  28th,  but  it  indicated  that  the 
Union  was  in  such  a  position  that  it  could  dictate  its  terms 
and  the  Association  houses  knew  it.  This  victory  was  cele- 
brated by  a  great  mass  meeting  on  February  3d.  The  organ- 
ization drive  proceeded  thereafter  with  renewed  energy. 

In  the  month  of  February  membership  grew  by  leaps  and 
bounds,  The  northwest  side,  including  some  13,000  work- 
ers, was  put  in  charge  of  Mr.  Glickman.  With  the  assistance 
of  the  business  agents  and  an  active  organization  committee 
of  fifteen,  with  INIr.  Diamond  as  chairman,  the  work  of  the 
district  was  carried  on.  Meetings  were  held  every  morning 
before  going  to  work.  The  committee  had  to  get  more  mem- 
bers of  the  vest  shops  interested  in  the  campaign,  which  they 
did  to  such  an  extent  that  after  several  of  these  meetings 
there  were  50  to  75  members  present  every  morning.  The 
committee  went  on  duty  in  front  of  shops  every  morning 
before  going  to  work  and  left  the  shop  15  or  20  minutes 
before  lunch  time  and  before  quitting  time  in  the  evening,  in 
order  to  carry  on  their  campaign  work.  Of  course  there  was 
no  pay  for  time  lost.  A  meeting  of  one  of  the  Kuppenheimer 
shops,  one  of  the  largest  and  most  bitter  anti-union  shops, 
increased  the  membership  by  50.  The  story  of  how  this 
victory  was  won  is  told  by  Organizer  Glickman : 

"  The  building  at  Winchester  Avenue,  and  Bloomingdale 
Road,  housing  three  shops  of  B.  Kuppenheimer  was  one  of  the 
fortresses  of  the  Association.  During  the  entire  period  of  the 
campaign,  private  detectives  and  sluggers  were  stationed  inside 
and  out  of  that  shop.  Numerous  arrests  of  our  officers  and 
committees  were  made.  On  one  particular  evening  in  the  month 
of  March,  1919,  12  of  our  committee  men  were  arrested.  Six 
patrol  wagons  responded  to  a  riot  call  sent  in  by  the  Company. 
Three  of  our  men  were  badly  cut  with  knives  by  the  Company's 
employees  and  a  great  many  more  men  beaten  by  policemen's 
clubs.  In  spite  of  all  this,  the  work  of  the  organization  in  this 
House  was  not  weakened  by  this  incident,  and  finally  a  group 


116      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  workers  of  this  building  attended  one  of  the  shop  meetings, 
their  numbers  steadily  increasing,  until  it  led  to  the  signing  of 
the  Agreement." 

Things  then  began  to  move  more  rapidly. 

"  About  the  1st  of  March,  the  people  of  the  firm  of  Spiesber- 
ger,  Erman  &  Co.,  a  children's  clothing  house  with  two  coat 
shops  and  one  knee  pants  shop  went  on  a  strike.  The  usual 
arrests  of  pickets  and  slugging  of  our  members  took  place. 
The  majority  of  the  people  stayed  about  6  weeks,  when  the 
organization  decided  to  send  the  people  back  to  work  by  ar- 
rangement with  an  elected  committee  of  the  people,  and  only 
a  few  weeks  later,  this  House  came  under  the  general  agree- 
ment signed  with  the  Association.  The  next  house  to  sign  was 
the  Pellstein  Clothing  Company,  manufacturers  of  3^oung  men's 
clothing.  After  many  shop  meetings,  demands  were  presented 
and  on  Easter  Monday,  1919,  the  agreement  with  increases  both 
for  the  tailors  and  cutters  was  signed.  Another  important 
event  was  the  strike  in  the  shops  of  Chas.  Kaufman  &  Bros, 
after  months  of  organization  work.  The  people  of  that  House 
went  out  on  a  strike  about  the  middle  of  February.  The  cut- 
ters, working  in  the  main  building,  also  went  out,  and  the 
picketing  was  supervised  by  these  cutters.  This  House  applied 
for  and  was  granted  an  injunction  against  our  organization, 
restraining  us  from  doing  anything  except  breathing.  Many 
a  member  has  had  a  ride  in  the  patrol  wagon.  Sluggers  and 
strike  breakers  were  employed  and  after  a  period  of  five  weeks, 
the  people  went  back  to  work  and  about  a  month  later  this 
House  came  under  the  general  agreement.  The  overcoat  shop, 
"  D,"  of  Alfred  Decker  &  Cohn  deserves  special  mention. 
There  were  about  250  people  employed  there.  As  early  as 
November,  1918,  the  organization  got  a  strong  hold  in  this 
shop.  In  December,  1919,  the  people  had  elected  Brother  Max 
Brown  as  their  chairman  at  one  of  the  shop  meetings.  Of 
course,  he  was  not  recognized,  but  due  to  the  strength  of  the 
organization  in  this  shop,  he  was  not  discriminated  against. 
The  following  incident  especially  is  worth  mentioning,  for  it 
showed  the  spirit  of  the  people  as  well  as  the  power  they  com- 
manded in  the  shop.  In  the  middle  of  January,  1919,  Lichten- 
stein,  a  collar  maker,  was  discharged  by  the  firm.  At  this  time 
the  chairman  was  taking  up  some  complaints  semi-officially  with 
the  company,  so  he  took  up  the  matter  of  Lichtenstein's  dis- 
charge. After  three  weeks  of  unsuccessful  efforts,  the  people 
displayed  their  strength  by  stopping  work  in  the  shop.  This 
stoppage   lasted   about   2^^   hours,   tying  up   completely   the 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       117 

entire  shop.  The  Company  then  re-instated  the  man,  with  pay 
for  the  three  week's  lost  time,  and  also  paid  all  the  people  for 
the  time  they  lost  during  the  stoppage.  In  February,  1919, 
the  organization  arranged  a  dance  for  the  people  of  the  shop 
at  the  Wicker  Park  Hall,  which  was  an  immense  success,  as 
not  only  the  people  of  that  shop  attended,  but  invitations  wero 
extended  to  the  workers  of  the  other  shops  of  this  concern,  and 
a  great  number  of  these  were  present.  This  was  practically 
the  first  time  that  a  shop,  belonging  to  the  Association,  had 
attended  a  successful  affair  given  by  the  Union.  In  the  latter 
part  of  March,  1919,  the  people  of  the  shop  presented  demands 
for  recognition  of  their  shop  chairman  and  shop  committee, 
also  for  an  increase  in  wages.  After  several  negotiations,  the 
Company  refused  the  people's  demands.  The  people  went  out 
on  a  strike.  After  the  first  week  of  the  strike,  negotiations  with 
the  Company  were  started  by  the  Chairman  and  committee,  but 
with  no  avail;  however,  after  the  strike  had  lasted  four  weeks, 
successful  arrangements  were  made  for  all  people  to  return  to 
work  with  recognition  of  the  chairman  and  committee  and  nq 
discrimination  for  union  affiliation.  The  question  of  increases 
in  wages  was  to  be  taken  up  later.  The  committee  held  only 
3  or  4  meetings,  and  just  when  they  were  ready  to  make  final 
arrangements,  the  general  agreement  was  signed  with  that 
House. 

"  During  all  this  time  the  organization  campaign  was  pushed 
vigorously.  Shop  meetings  were  held  daily,  while  the  commit- 
tees together  with  officers  went  in  front  of  the  shops  three  times 
a  day.  Many  of  the  large  and  small  shops  attended  these 
meetings.  There  were  as  many  as  8  or  10  meetings  daily  and 
the  prevailing  spirit  was  very  good. 

"  The  Cohn  &  Rissman  cutters  walked  out  with  the  tailors 
early  in  March.  Besides  the  usual  formula  of  injunctions,  slug- 
gers, bribes  and  the  police,  the  firm  tried  a  new  stunt  which  is 
worth  telling.  One  mid-night  the  boss  and  the  foreman  went 
visiting  the  cutters'  homes  in  an  automobile,  telling  each  one 
that  the  other  was  going  to  work  in  the  morning.  A  loyal  cut- 
ter called  Brother  Rissman  at  12  o'clock  and  he  called  Brother 
Kroll  (they  had  just  come  home  from  a  meeting)  ;  they  secured 
a  machine  and  also  went  visiting  about  1  a.  m.  and  insisted  that 
each  cutter  they  called  on,  dress  and  get  in  the  machine  with 
them.  So  at  5  a.  m.  there  were  two-machine-loads  of  pickets 
in  front  of  the  factory  and  not  a  man  went  in. 

"  The  Charles  Kaufman  men  were  also  early  to  strike  and 
immediately  the  1916  injunction  was  put  on  the  walls   (that 


118      CLOTHIXG  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

was  the  style — one  day  a  strike  and  the  next  day  an  injunction 
appeared).  Despite  this  they  put  up  a  wonderful  fight  and 
were  sent  back  to  work  just  previous  to  the  signing  of  the  agree- 
ment. 

"  The  Chicago  Tailoring  Association  men  were  also  organiz- 
ing and  one  day  the  astounding  news  spread  through  the  cloth- 
ing district  that  every  man  ini  the  cutting  room  had  received 
a  nine  dollar  raise  which  made  them  the  highest  paid  cutters 
in  the  city,  but  they  continued  to  organize. 

*'  The  Special  Order  cutters  who  were  so  hard  to  organize 
were  now  showing  signs  of  activity.  Soon  the  Bridie  and  Rog- 
ofsky  men  were  in  the  union  and  made  a  demand  for  more 
wages  and  when  refused  they  sat  on  the  tables  without  working, 
went  out  at  noon  and  came  back  and  still  sat  on  the  tables. 
This  continued  for  a  day  and  a  half  until  their  demands  were 
granted.  Next  day  two  active  union  men  were  fired  and  the 
rest  walked  out  on  strike  and  stayed  out  until  an  agreement 
was  reached. 

"  The  International  Cutters  were  next  in  line.  Here  union 
men  were  discharged  and  the  firm  refused  to  reinstate  them. 
The  men  then  struck  and  soon  the  firm  offered  to  reinstate  the 
men,  but  the  men  then  wanted  a  closed  shop,  and  a  telephone 
conversation  ensued  from  the  union  office  to  the  firm  which 
secured  for  the  men  a  $6.00  raise,  but  even  then  it  took  great 
effort  to  get  them  to  return  to  work. 

"  The  leaven  was  also  working  in  Kuppenheimer's  trimming 
room.  One  noon-day  a  young  trimmer  was  asked  to  see  what 
he  could  do  towards  organizing  the  trimming  room  and  at  2.30 
p.  m.  he  brought  the  entire  trimming  force  over  to  the  Union 
Headquarters,  about  25  boys  all  over  19  years,  to  join  the 
union  and  they  then  returned  to  work. 

"  A  shop  chairman  in  Hirsch  Wickwire's  shop  was  fired  out 
one  day  and  a  stoppage  occurred  in  the  factory,  and  then  word 
was  signaled  from  the  street  to  the  cutting  room,  the  cutters 
stopped  like  a  unit  and  the  chairman  was  reinstated.  This  was 
the  first  demonstration  of  the  solidarity  of  an  entire  factory  in 
the  campaign." 

On  March  12th,  the  National  Tailoring  Company,  against 
whom  a  strike  had  been  conducted  for  recognition  and  in- 
crease in  wages,  settled  with  the  union,  granting  an  increase 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       119 

of  $4  a  week.  On  March  13th,  the  City  Tailors  settled  with 
the  union,  giving  a  10%  increase  in  addition  to  15%  pre- 
viously granted.  The  Continental  Tailoring  Company  en- 
tered into  a  preferential  agreement  and  granted  a  7%  in- 
crease. Still  the  association  was  maintaining  a  system  of 
blacklisting  by  means  of  which  they  could  discriminate 
against  workers  active  in  the  organization.  An  application 
blank  was  filed  for  each  applicant  with  the  chief  of  the  "  La- 
bor Bureau,"  indicating  the  opinions  of  the  applicant,  what 
organizations  he  belonged  to,  what  offices  he  had  held,  if  any, 
and  the  names  and  addresses  of  his  last  five  employers. 

On  March  20th  a  great  mass  meeting  to  celebrate  the 
organization  campaign  was  held  in  Carmen's  Hall.  Presi- 
dent Hillman,  Secretary- Treasurer  Schlossberg,  John  Fitz- 
patrick,  and  others  addressed  this  meeting.  A  resolution 
was  there  unanimously  adopted  authorizing  the  Chicago 
officers  of  the  union  to  enforce  collective  bargaining  and  to 
take  whatever  action  they  deemed  necessary  for  such  enforce- 
ment. The  thrill  of  that  meeting  touched  even  the  news'- 
paper  reporters,  one  of  whom  described  it  vividly  in  an  edi- 
torial : 

"  A  rush  of  crowds,  clamor  and  surge  of  seat  hunting. 
Eagerness  of  spirit  *  *  *  Middle-aged  men  and  women, 
listening  not  with  attention  but  with  passionate  intentness  *  *  * 
Sentences  you  could  put  your  teeth  into,  like :  *  While  the 
world  war  was  fought  to  make  the  world  fit  for  democracy,  we 
are  fighting,  we  are  organizing,  and  shall  continue  to  fight  and 
organize  until  we  are  100%  organized  and  can  make  the  world 
a  fit  place  and  a  decent  place  for  working  people  to  work  in.' 
*  *  *  Lavish  literature  everywhere — lavish  in  quantity  and 
in  style  *  *  *  The  gustiness  of  it  all  caught  you  up  and 
swirled  you  along  *  *  *  They  did  not  ask  things  or  plead 
for  them.     They  crisply  formulated  demands." 

Towards  April,  the  employers  were  beginning  to  show 
signs  of  panic.  They  yielded  on  every  side.  Increase  fol- 
lowed increase,  but  still  the  applications  for  membership 
came  in  by  the  hundreds.  Individual  firms,  like  the  Con- 
tinental Tailoring  Company,  were  entering  agreements  with 
the  union  similar  to  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agree- 


120     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ments.  Under  the  Continental  Tailoring  Co.  agreement 
even  the  impartial  machinery  was  established,  with  Mullen- 
bach  as  chairman.  The  Majestic  Tailors  and  the  Oxford 
Tailoring  Company  were  by  this  time  signed  up  while  others 
were  negotiating  with  the  union. 

On  March  26th,  the  strike  against  B.  Kuppenheimer  & 
Co.  was  won.  The  firm  agreed  to  reinstate  all  of  its  work- 
ers without  discrimination,  to  recognize  the  shop  committee, 
and  to  pay  the  strikers  for  all  the  time  they  were  out.  In  the 
meantime,  the  organizers  were  kept  busy  enrolling  new  mem- 
bers from  all  the  shops.  By  the  end  of  March  agreements 
were  signed  with  seventeen  more  individual  firms,  and  Mr. 
Rosenblum  reported  that  the  southwest  district  situation 
was  better  than  it  had  ever  been  before.  In  April,  Charles 
Kaufman  &  Bros.,  Alfred  Decker  &  Cohn,  and  other  im- 
portant shops,  sent  out  letters  to  all  their  employees  urging 
them  to  return  and  made  a  last  effort  to  induce  them  to  be 
satisfied  with  their  shop  committee  system.  Organizer  Glick- 
man  describes  the  attempt  made  by  many  of  the  firms  to  in- 
augurate the  shop  committee  as  a  last  device  to  smash  the 
union: 

"  In  order  to  give  a  correct  idea  of  these  committee  systems 
I  will  explain  what  they  meant  in  one  of  the  houses,  B.  Kuppen- 
heimer &  Co.  The  designer,  the  production  manager,  and  the 
superintendent  of  the  building  called  all  the  employees  together 
on  their  main  floor  and  explained  to  them  that  they  wanted  the 
people  to  elect  their  representatives  in  the  shop,  that  they  did 
not  have  to  join  the  union  in  order  to  better  their  conditions, 
that  all  those  who  did  not  join  the  union  would  receive  one 
week's  vacation  with  pay  and  a  bonus  on  their  earnings.  Three 
committees  consisting  of  either  men  or  women  were  to  be  electe4 
on  each  floor.  One  committee  was  to  represent  all  pressing  sec- 
tions, one  all  operating  sections  and  one  all  hand  work  sections. 
A  ballot  box  was  then  produced,  slips  of  paper  distributed  and 
some  workers,  who  were  loyal  to  the  company,  voted.  All  union 
people  refrained  from  voting,  having  been  previously  so  in- 
structed at  the  organization  shop  meetings.  The  company's 
representatives  then  took  the  ballot  box  with  them,  returned  the 
following  day,  announcing  the  names  of  twelve  workers  who 
supposedly  were  elected.     Among  these  were  five  good  union 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       121 

men.  After  this,  they  were  called  to  the  main  building  where 
a  conference  with  the  highest  officials  of  the  company  was  held. 
Again  the  same  promises,  and  as  expected,  the  union  men  were 
the  spokesmen  for  the  committee,  working  according  to  instruc- 
tions given  them  by  the  union.  They  asked  the  company  to 
issue  all  their  propositions  in  a  written  form  so  that  they  might 
return  to  the  people  in  the  shop  with  something  that  was  con- 
crete. This  the  company  refused.  Six  or  seven  conferences 
of  a  similar  nature  were  held  but  the  company  received  little  or 
no  satisfaction.  Exactly  what  happened  in  Kuppenheimer's 
shop  happened  in  the  other  association  houses,  as  they  all  fol- 
lowed the  same  program  with  the  same  unsuccessful  results, 
since  the  union  had  a  perfected  organization  in  almost  every 
shop  in  the  city  as  well  as  in  the  district." 

It  was  now  the  beginning  of  the  end.  In  the  next  few 
weeks  more  shops  settled  with  the  union.  The  firm  of  Cohn 
&  Rissman  secured  an  injunction  against  picketing  and  had 
pine  strikers  arrested.  By  the  end  of  April  three  thousand 
workers  were  on  strike  for  recognition.  The  firm  of  Alfred 
Decker  &  Cohn  was  completely  tied  up ;  the  strike  was  again 
renewed  against  the  Kuppenheimer  Company  and  strikes 
against  many  small  firms  were  in  progress.  Nearly  three 
hundred  pickets  had  been  arrested,  but  the  membership  grew 
so  rapidly  that  the  northwest  side  district  was  forced  to  move 
its  offices  in  order  to  acconmiodate  the  increase  in  mem- 
bership. 

The  first  day  of  May,  1919,  was  a  day  long  to  be  remem- 
bered. The  Ashland  Auditorium  was  secured  for  the  cele- 
bration. Word  was  sent  to  the  non-union  shops,  calling  upon 
the  workers  to  join  in  celebrating  the  workers'  international 
holiday  and  to  demonstrate  the  solidarity  of  the  working 
class.  The  hour  for  their  stoppage  was  set  at  2:30  P.  M. 
On  the  hour  the  workers  left  their  benches  in  the  non-union 
cutting  rooms  and  factories  and  all  flocked  to  the  halls  which 
were  soon  crowded  to  the  doors.  The  "  shop  committee  '* 
plans  sponsored  by  the  employers  had  now  definitely  failed. 
In  the  first  week  of  May  the  strike  against  Alfred  Decker 
&  Cohn  was  settled;  the  firm  recognized  the  shop  committee 
and  promised  to  establish  machinery  for  collective  bargain- 


122     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ing.  On  these  terms  work  was  resumed  on  Monday,  May  5, 
and  all  the  workers  returned.  The  Cohn  &  Rissman  strike 
was  also  terminated  with  a  preferential  shop  agreement  and 
a  fifteen  per  cent,  increase. 

"  Then  came  reports  of  this  house  conferring  with  the  union 
to  get  their  strikers  back,  that  house  offering  to  sign  on  a  cer- 
tain date,  others  giving  indications  of  willingness  to  negotiate. 
Then  that  day  in  May,  when  the  world  never  seemed  so  bright 
and  the  sky  so  blue,  came  the  word  that  the  A.  C.  W.  of  A.  and 
the  Wholesale  Manufacturers'  Association  had  reached  an  un- 
derstanding and  an  agreement  was  to  be  signed." 

On  May  13,  1919,  President  Hillman  was  ready  to  present 
to  the  Chicago  clothing  workers  an  agreement  with  the 
Association,  providing  for  a  preferential  union  shop  and 
arbitration  machinery.  Notices  were  posted  in  all  the  shops 
of  the  Wholesale  Clothiers'  Association,  notifying  the  work- 
ers that  the  Association  had  signed  up  and  directing  them  to 
meet  at  3 :30  in  the  Carmen's  Hall  to  vote  on  the  agreement 
that  would  be  there  submitted  to  them.  All  the  factories 
closed  at  2 :30  P.  M.  The  Hart,  Schaff ner  and  Marx  workers 
who  had  fought,  bled  and  paid  for  this  day,  left  their  benches 
at  2  o'clock;  and  promptly  at  2:30  the  non-union  factories 
opened  their  doors  and  the  workers  marched  to  the  hall 
through  the  solid  ranks  of  the  cheering  thousands  of  union 
men  and  women  who  had  helped  them  in  their  struggle  for 
emancipation.  The  meeting  was  opened  by  Mr.  Rissman. 
After  addresses  by  Rosenblum,  Levin  and  a  few  others. 
President  Hillman  submitted  the  pact  to  the  workers  and  it 
was  unanimously  ratified. 

At  the  same  time  negotiations  were  in  progress  between 
the  union  and  the  Wholesale  Tailors'  Association.  The 
Cut,  Make  and  Trim  Association  agreed  to  sign  with  the 
union,  granting  a  $35  minimum  for  cutters,  and  whatever 
the  union  scale  was,  to  the  tailors.  This  association  included 
about  two  thousand  people.  On  May  26,  at  another  great 
mass  meeting,  the  members  ratified  the  agreement  with  the 
National  Wholesale  Tailors'  Association  by  unanimous  vote. 
This  concluded  the  organization  of  the  whole  market.    "  The 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  MARKET       123 

U.  G.  '  Label  Shops  '  swung  over  at  last,  the  Chicago  cloth- 
ing cutters  were  industrially  free,  no  more  Medinah  Temple 
with  its  infamous  blacklist,  no  more  cringing  or  begging 
favors  from  bullying  tyrants  of  foremen.  At  last  our  wild- 
est dreams  are  brought  to  a  realization — Chicago  100  per 
cent.  Amalgamated." 


General  Executive  Board,  Anialg 


ROSV^'^^ 


^'Han   Sit.&^^ 


^'='HEN   SV^^'^ 


atcd  Clothino-  Workers  of   Anicricii,  1920-1922 


PART  II 
WAGES  AND  HOURS 


CHAPTER  VII 

WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921 

Wages  of  the  clothing  worker  in  Chicago  at  the  beginning 
of  1911  were  those  of  the  unorganized  and  sweated  worker. 
Fifteen  dollars  were  the  average  earnings  of  the  men 
workers  and  ten  dollars  the  average  earnings  of  the  women 
workers  for  the  full  time  week  of  54  hours.  These  are  the 
figures  compiled  by  the  United  States  Government  from  the 
payrolls  of  the  clothing  firms  in  1911. 

It  is  interesting  that  the  first  agreement  of  the  union  with 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  March  13,  1911,  contained  as  a 
concession  to  the  union  the  following  provision  with  regard 
to  a  minimum  wage: 

"  No  employee  shall  receive  less  than  $5.00  per  week  and  no 
male  employee  above  the  age  of  17  shall  receive  less  than  $6.00 
per  week,  and  no  male  employee  above  the  age  of  18  shall  receive 
less  than  $8.00  per  week." 

The  need  for  a  minimum  wage  provision  of  this  sort  is 
revealed  in  the  examination  of  the  books  of  the  clothing 
manufacturers  in  1911  made  by  the  Federal  Government. 
The  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  found  that  8 
per  cent,  of  all  women  workers  received  less  than  $5  a  week 
and  that  49  per  cent,  received  less  than  $10  a  week.  Only 
one  out  of  every  seven  women  workers  received  as  much  as 
$13.50  for  a  54-hour  week.  Among  the  men  workers  8  per 
cent,  received  less  than  $8  a  week  and  40  per  cent.  $13  or 
less.  Or  in  other  words,  these  40  per  cent,  were  paid  at  the 
rate  of  less  than  25  cents  per  hour.  Of  all  the  men  workers 
in  the  tailor  shops  in  1911  only  one  in  twenty  (5  per  cent, 
of  the  total)  received  as  much  as  40  cents  an  hour  for  his 
work.     Among  the  cutters  the  government  found  that  89 


128     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

out  of  583  cutters  then  employed  in  the  factories  selected 
for  investigation  in  Chicago  in  1911  received  less  than  30 
cents  an  hour.  The  full  earnings  of  these  89  cutters  for 
a  48-hour  week  was  $15  a  week  or  less.  In  1911  only  4  per 
cent,  of  all  the  cutters  in  the  Chicago  market  received  as 
much  as  60  cents  an  hour. 

The  same  report  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  on  wages  in  Chicago  showed  that  men  basters  on 
coats  in  1911  earned  $13.65  on  the  average  and  women 
basters  $10.94  a  week.  Bushelers  and  tailors  averaged 
$14.11;  cutters  $19.30,  although  a  few  machine  cutters  were 
reported  earning  $24.60;  examiners  $15.36;  fitters,  reported 
as  the  highest  paid  section  in  the  tailoring  department, 
$17.13;  men  operators  on  coats  $17.09;  women  operators 
$12.07.    Pressers  received  on  the  average  $14.21. 

These  were  the  average  earnings  when  the  people  worked 
54  hours  per  week.  Seasonal  unemployment  was  then,  as 
it  is  still,  a  very  serious  factor.  Taking  into  account  the  loss 
of  earnings  during  the  slack  season,  men  workers  in  the 
Chicago  clothing  industry  in  1911  hardly  averaged  more 
than  $10  or  $11  per  week  over  the  entire  year.  Even  at  the 
very  low  prices  of  1910-11  these  wages  bought  less  food, 
clothing  and  shelter  than  was  necessary  to  maintain  even  a 
minimum  subsistence  standard  of  living.  For  many  workers 
with  families  it  was  virtually  a  starvation  wage. 

The  first  agreement  with  the  union  in  the  Chicago  cloth- 
ing market  took  some  recognition  of  these  conditions.  The 
union  succeeded  in  securing  an  increase  for  all  of  the  workers. 
The  agreement  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  read  as 
follows : 

"  That  there  shall  be  a  uniform  increase  in  the  wages  of  all 
the  employes  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  clothing  in  the 
tailor  shops  whether  by  piece  work  or  by  time  work  of  10  per 
cent." 

In  the  trimming  department  the  minimum  rate  was  fixed 
at  $8  per  week  and  an  increase  of  10  per  cent,  was  also 
granted.  In  the  woolen  examining  department  the  piece  work 
rate  was  adjusted  to  give  a  similar  10  per  cent,  increase. 


WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  129 

Cutters'  wages  were  raised  5  per  cent.  The  agreement  also 
specifically  provided  that  in  all  departments  persons  that 
were  paid  by  the  week  shall  be  paid  time  and  a  half  for  over- 
time. The  company  volmitarily  extended  the  application 
of  time  and  a  half  for  overtime  to  the  piece  workers  at  the 
same  time.  Not  mitil  1917,  six  years  later,  did  workers  in 
certain  non-union  houses  in  the  Chicago  market  receive  pay 
and  a  half  for  overtime.  The  agreement  also  established  the 
54-hour  week. 

The  progress  of  the  workers  in  the  Chicago  market,  as  a 
whole,  in  the  matter  of  wages  was  very  slow  in  the  early 
years  of  the  Chicago  organization.  In  1912  the  government 
again  examined  the  payrolls  and  reported  that  average  wages 
of  all  workers  had  risen  from  $12.24  in  1911  to  $12.68  in 
1912.  The  gain  was  3  per  cent.  Men  workers  had  fared 
better  than  the  women  workers.  Average  earnings  for  the 
men  rose  $1.50  a  week,  or  10  per  cent,  from  1911  to  1912, 
while  the  wages  of  the  women  workers  averaged  only  2  per 
cent,  more  in  1912  than  they  did  in  1911.  Already  the  pro- 
vision in  the  agreement  of  1911  increasing  the  pay  of  the 
workers  in  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  had  had  its  effect 
upon  the  earnings  of  the  workers  generally,  particularly  the 
men  workers. 

A  supplemental  agreement  was  negotiated  and  made  ef- 
fective April  1, 1912.  This  agreement  provided  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  trade  board  with  authority  to  fix  piece  work 
rates.  In  fixing  piece  work  rates  the  board  was  to  be  guided 
by  the  rule :  "  Changed  prices  must  correspond  to  the 
changed  work  and  new  prices  must  be  based  upon  old  prices 
where  possible."  The  effect  of  this  rule  was  to  place  the 
making  of  piece  work  prices  on  a  more  scientific  basis  and  to 
prevent  possible  under-cutting  of  the  wage  standard  in  effect 
by  a  change  in  specifications  for  work  done.  This  rule  has 
been  in  effect  continuously  since  it  was  first  adopted  in  1912. 

In  1913  the  first  agreement  with  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  Company  was  renewed.  Specifically,  no  increases  in 
wages  were  granted.  Hours  of  work  were  reduced,  how- 
ever, from  54  to  52  and  earnings  were  adjusted  so  that  the 


130     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

worker  suffered  no  loss  by  the  reduction  in  hours.  In  non- 
union shops,  making  a  similar  change  in  hours,  weekly  earn- 
ings were  reduced.  This  is  indicated  in  the  survey  of  the  pay- 
rolls made  in  1914  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  which  shows  a  falling  off  in  the  average  earnings 
per  full-time  week  of  men  workers  in  the  clothing  industry 
generally.  The  Bureau  attributes  the  loss  in  earnings  to 
the  reduction  in  the  number  of  hours  worked. 

The  1913  agreement  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx, 
moreover,  specifically  provided  that  piece  workers  were  to 
receive  rate  and  one-half  for  overtime  work.  This  had  al- 
ready been  the  practice  since  1911,  but  it  was  written  into  the 
agreement  for  the  first  time  in  1913.  Minor  changes  were 
also  made  in  the  minimum  wage  provisions  so  that  workers 
automatically  were  raised  certain  specified  amounts  after 
three  months'  service. 

In  July,  19}4,  the  average  wages  of  the  worker  in  the 
coat  shop  and  the  increases  over  1911  were  as  follows: 

Average  Wages 

per  FuU  Increase 

Operation.                                           Time  Week.  Since 

1914.  1911. 

Basters — 

Men     

Women    

Bushelers  and  Tailors 

Cutters — 

Hand     

Machine    

Examiners     

Fitters  

Hand  Sewers — 

Men , 

Women    

Operators,  Coat  Shop — 

Men 

Women    

Pressers,  Coat 


$14.48 
11.49 
14.67 

$0.83 
.66 
.56 

22.01 
25.22 
17.40 
18.13 

2.71 

.62 

2.04 

1.00 

13.40 
10.63 

1.46 
1.20 

18.16 
12.74 
16.59 

1.07 

.67 

2.38 

WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  131 

The  average  earnings  of  men  workers  in  the  men's  clothing 
industry  in  Chicago  in  1914  were  $16.49  per  week,  or  roughly 
about  10  per  cent,  higher  than  in  1911.  The  earnings  of 
women  had,  however,  been  increased  more  than  had  the 
earnings  of  the  men  during  the  first  three  years  of  the  life 
of  the  Chicago  organization.  In  1911  the  earnings  of  women 
for  a  54-hour  week  were  $10  on  the  average.  In  1914,  for  a 
52-hour  week  the  average  earnings  were  $13.69. 

Wages  were,  it  is  true,  higher  in  1914  than  in  1911,  but 
they  were  still  far  below  an  amount  necessary  to  permit  the 
worker  and  his  family  a  proper  standard  of  living. 

Early  in  1915  a  vigorous  campaign  of  organization  was 
begun  in  the  shops  not  then  operating  under  union  agree- 
ment. The  workers  in  Hart,  SchaflFner  and  Marx  were  then 
the  only  ones  organized.  As  a  result  of  the  campaign,  the 
workers  presented  demands  through  the  union  to  the  non- 
union houses  for  increases  in  wages,  betterment  of  working 
conditions  and  the  recognition  of  the  union.  The  manufac- 
turers refused  to  consider  the  demands  of  the  workers  and 
a  long,  bitter  and  costly  strike  followed. 

The  strike  was  terminated  by  "  shop  settlements,"  carry- 
ing a  reduction  of  horn's  in  the  working  week.  In  the 
tailors-to-the-trade  houses  hours  were  reduced  from  52  to  48. 
The  ready-made  houses  followed  their  example  in  April, 
1916,  and  reduced  hours  from  52  to  50.  Shortly  after 
the  strike  was  settled  one  of  the  largest  tailors-to-the- 
trade  firms  gave  a  10  per  cent,  increase  in  wages  to  the 
workers.  The  ready-made  clothing  firms  then  followed  by 
granting  a  10  per  cent,  increase  in  the  form  of  a  "  bonus." 
The  strike  thus  brought  almost  immediately  increases  in 
wages,  although  the  manufacturers  had  "  won."  The  spirit 
shown  by  the  workers  during  the  strike  had  forced  conces- 
sions from  the  employers. 

At  the  end  of  the  1915  strike  there  was  no  change  in  the 
number  of  firms  officially  recognizing  the  Amalgamated. 
The  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Company  continued  to  be 


132     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  only  firm  under  agreement  with  the  organization.  But 
those  who  worked  in  the  non-union  shops  had  returned  to 
work  after  the  strike  with  a  new  feeUng  of  loyalty  to  the 
union.  The  beginning  of  a  permanent  organization  in  non- 
union shops  was  under  way.  The  manufacturers  recognized 
the  change  in  the  situation.  For  the  next  three  years,  there- 
fore, the  history  of  wages  in  the  Chicago  market  was  largely 
determined  by  the  progress  made  by  the  union  in  their  deal- 
ings with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Company.  The  other 
manufacturers  in  the  market  made  wage  adjustments  in 
1916,  1917  and  1918  only  as  the  union  gained  concessions  in 
dealing  with  the  house  which  since  1911  had  recognized  the 
union.  Sometimes  these  increases  ("  bonuses  "  as  they  were 
called  so  they  could  be  withdrawn  more  readily  if  conditions 
warranted)  were  granted  while  negotiations  between  the 
union  and  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  were  in  progress.  It 
was  the  purpose  of  the  non-union  manufacturers  to  anticipate 
the  official  increases  pending  in  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx. 
In  other  instances  the  increases  immediately  followed  an 
agreement  between  the  imion  and  that  firm  or  a  favorable 
decision  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  so  as  to  keep  in  check 
as  much  as  possible  disaffection  and  organization  campaigns 
in  the  non-union  shops.  Consequently,  although  the  union 
was  recognized  officially  only  by  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  Company,  every  concession  gained  by  the  union  in 
its  dealings  with  that  company  immediately  affected  the  en- 
tire market. 

The  agreement  of  1913  expired  in  the  spring  of  1916  and 
a  new  agreement  with  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Com- 
pany was  entered  into  at  that  time.  The  signing  of  the  new 
agreement  marked  the  five-year  anniversary  of  the  Amal- 
gamated organization  in  Chicago.  The  1916  agreement  pro- 
vided that  the  company  should  give  an  increase  in  wages 
equal  in  amount  to  10  per  cent,  of  the  total  payroll  of  the 
shops.  The  union  was  granted  the  right  to  distribute  this 
advance  according  to  its  best  judgment.  This  unusual  re- 
sponsibility the  union  accepted  and  it  distributed  the  in- 


WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  133 

crease  not  uniformly  among  all  workers,  but  in  such  a  way 
as  to  grant  the  largest  increases  to  those  who  worked  in  the 
poorly  paid  sections.  The  courage  and  wisdom  of  the  union 
in  suggesting  and  applying  this  procediu*e  was  publicly 
recognized  at  the  time  by  a  statement  from  the  chairman  of 
the  Board  of  Arbitration,  Mr.  J.  E.  Williams.  He  then 
wrote: 

**  And  now  I  have  to  record  what  is  to  me  the  most  remark- 
able feature  of  the  whole  settlement.  Instead  of  taking  the  ten 
per  cent,  advance  and  applying  it  horizontally  to  all  workers 
alike,  the  union  has  made  the  unheard  of  demand  that  it  be  per- 
mitted to  distribute  the  ten  per  cent,  in  such  manner  as  to  more 
equitably  compensate  the  poorly  paid  workers.  That  is,  they 
want  to  give  most  of  the  benefit  of  the  advance  to  those  receiv- 
ing the  lowest  pay,  so  that  the  inferior  sections  may  possibly 
be  raised  twenty  per  cent,  while  the  higher  paid  sections  may 
receive  only  five  per  cent. — if  equity  requires  it. 

"  Consider  what  this  means.  It  means  that  the  stronger  and 
more  skilled  workers  are  voluntarily  denying  themselves  of  an 
equal  share  in  order  that  justice  may  be  done  their  more  needy 
brethren. 

"  It  means,  too,  that  we  have  a  union  here  so  highly  developed 
that  it  is  able  to  devote  itself  to  ideal  aims  and  is  strong  enough 
to  enforce  these  ideal  aims  on  selfish  and  rebellious  members — 
should  there  be  any. 

**  Will  anyone  say  that  a  union  that  is  able  to  rise  to  this 
height  of  self-discipline,  is  dangerous  or  unfit  to  be  trusted  with 
power.?  Will  anyone  pretend  that  such  a  union  is  incapable  of 
self-control.'' 

The  cutting  and  trimming  departments  received  special 
treatment  in  the  1916  agreement.  All  cutters  whose  wages 
were  less  than  $26  per  week  were  given  an  increase  of  $1 
per  week.  In  the  trimming  department  all  men  receiving 
$15  or  less  per  week  were  given  increases  of  $2  per  week; 
all  men  receiving  over  $15  per  week  and  not  exceeding  $20 
per  week  were  given  increases  of  $1  per  week.  In  addition 
the  agreement  provided  for  periodical  increases  to  imderpaid 
workers  to  bring  their  wages  up  to  higher  levels. 


134     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

The  following  provisions  in  regard  to  the  minimum  wage 
were  made  effective  by  the  1916  agreement: 

The  minimum  wage  scale  in  the  tailor  shops  shall  be  as  fol- 
lows: 

1st  2nd  3rd 

Month.     Month.     Month. 

Machine     operators     (male     and 

female)    $5.00  $7.00  $9.00 

Women  in  hand  work  sections ...  6 .  00  6 .  00  8 .  00 

Men,  18  years  and  over,  not  opera- 
tors   8.00  10.00  12.00 

AH  men  not  included  in  above 8 .  00  9 .  00  10 .  00 

Inspector  tailors  (men) 16.00  ....  .... 


The  new  agreement  made  in  1916  also  registered  an  im- 
portant gain  in  the  number  of  hours  constituting  a  full-time 
week.  Hours  of  work  were  reduced  from  52  to  49.  In 
January,  1917,  the  company  again  reduced  hours  from  49  to 
48  and  piece  work  rates  were  increased  2  per  cent.,  again  in 
order  not  to  affect  the  earnings  of  the  piece  worker  under  the 
new  schedule  of  hours. 

The  first  general  increase  of  wages  during  the  war  period 
was  made  by  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  May  1, 
1917.  This  increase  was  granted  after  a  hearing  had  been 
held  under  the  so-called  *'  emergency  "  clause  in  the  agree- 
ment with  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx.  Wages  of  week 
workers  and  piece  work  rates  in  the  tailor  shops  were  in- 
creased by  10  per  cent.  The  cutters  at  the  same  time  were 
given  an  increase  of  $2.35,  which  amounted,  roughly,  to  10 
per  cent,  of  their  average  earnings. 

Early  in  1918  the  union  again  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  company  the  demand  of  the  workers  for  higher  wages. 
Direct  negotiations  between  the  union  and  the  company  were 
begun  which  culminated  in  a  successful  agreement,  effective 
May  1,  1918.    The  question  of  higher  wages  in  this  instance 


WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  135 

was  not  brought  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration.    Under  the 

agreement  of  May  1,   1918,  cutters,  trimmers  and  week 

workers  in  the  tailor  shops  were  granted  an  increase  of 

$8  per  week.     As  in  1916  no  horizontal  increase  for  piece 

workers  was  made.    The  workers  in  the  poorly  paid  sections 

were  granted  a  15  per  cent,  increase  and  those  in  the  better 

paid  sections  a  10  per  cent,  increase.    The  average  increase 

then  given  was  12%  per  cent.     The  wage  adjustment  of 

1918  followed  the  same  general  principle  first  adopted  in 

the  1916  settlement.    It  brought  up  the  wage  standards  of 

the  workers  of  the  more  poorly  paid  sections  to  a  higher 

level  by  distributing  the  advance  in  wages  so  that  they  would 

receive  proportionately  greater  increases  than  the  workers  in 

the  better  paid  sections. 

The  term  of  the  agreement  of  1916  was  three  years  and 
the  date  of  expiration  was  1919.    Negotiations  between  the 
union  and  the  company  were  begun  in  the  latter  part  of  1918 
and  were  carried  to  a  successful  conclusion  on  January  7, 
1919.    At  that  time  the  Amalgamated  in  New  York  City 
was  in  a  state  of  lockout,  declared  by  the  New  York  manu- 
factiu*ers  in  their  efforts  to  defeat  the  movement  for  the  44- 
hour  week.    The  new  agreement  with  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  established  the  44-hour  week  and  increased  piece  work 
rates  by  SYs  per  cent,  so  that  piece  workers  could  earn  in  44 
hours  as  much  as  they  had  formerly  earned  during  a  48-hour 
week.     Week  workers  were  granted  an  increase  of  $2  per 
week.     The  result  of  the  agreement  was  a  very  important 
one,  quite  aside  from  its  immediate  effect  on  wages  and 
hours  in  the  Chicago  market.    It  marked  the  inauguration 
of  the  44-hour  week  in  the  clothing  industry  throughout  the 
country  and  it  seriously  weakened  the  morale  of  the  New 
York  manufacturers  who  were  still  fighting  the  union  on  this 
issue. 

Organization  work  had,  in  the  meantime,  been  proceeding 
slowly  but  effectively  in  the  non-union  shops  in  the  Chicago 
clothing  industry.     Early  in  1919  the  workers  came  to  the 


136     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

realization  that  they  were  now  strong  enough  to  demand 
their  rights.  There  then  followed  in  the  non-union  shops, 
from  January  to  May,  a  series  of  shop  strikes  and  section 
stoppages  which  forced  concession  after  concession  from  the 
non-union  employers.  Increases  were  granted  in  some  cases 
to  sections  and  in  other  instances  to  whole  shops.  Several  of 
the  non-union  firms  were  forced  to  grant  general  increases 
for  all  their  workers  of  10  per  cent,  in  addition  to  increases 
already  granted  to  individual  sections.  To  quote  but  a  few 
examples,  on  January  20,  1919,  E.  V.  Price,  a  leading 
tailor-to-the-trade  house,  gave  a  10  per  cent,  horizontal  in- 
crease. On  January  27  the  Wholesale  Clothiers'  Associa- 
tion, composed  of  all  of  the  important  ready-made  clothing 
firms  in  the  city,  with  the  exception  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx,  announced  a  10  per  cent,  wage  increase.  Although  it 
was  stated  that  the  increase  was  not  to  be  put  into  effect  until 
April  28,  it  was  actually  made  effective  by  certain  houses 
early  in  February. 

On  March  3  fifty  cutters  employed  by  the  Chicago  Tailors* 
Association,  after  a  stoppage  of  work  caused  by  the  dis- 
charge of  an  active  member,  won  a  wage  increase  of  $9. 

On  March  12  The  International  Tailoring  Company 
locked  out  cutters  because  they  organized  and  asked  for  a 
wage  increase.  A  settlement  was  reached  the  following  day 
in  which  an  increase  of  $4  was  granted.  The  week  before 
the  cutters  had  received  a  raise  of  $2. 

On  March  13  City  Tailors  granted  10  per  cent,  increase 
following  a  previous  raise  of  15  per  cent. 

In  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Company  wages  re- 
mained stable  during  this  period.  The  result  of  these  shop 
strikes  was  the  signing  of  a  general  agreement  covering  all 
of  the  Chicago  market  with  the  exception  of  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx.  That  firm  retained  its  original  agreement.  The 
new  agreement  provided  for  wage  increases  as  follows : 

"  All  the  piece  work  sections  shall  be  classified  by  each  house 
according  to  the  average  weekly  earnings  of  each  section,  tak- 
ing all  the  workers  of  each  section  in  all  the  shops  of  each 


1.     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  Male  Workees,  Tailor  Shops,  1911. 
Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source:     U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor 


Statistics,  Bulletin  135. 


% 
70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

W 

10 

0 


% 
70 

GO 

50 

40 

• 

30 

■ 

20 

ll 

, 

10 

■ 

0 

iHinFe* 

AND| 

}AND| 

5AND2 

\WDl 

5AND3 

0AND3 

5AND4 

3AND4 

5  AND  5 

OANDS 

SANtrg 

QANDg 

5  AND 

t 

2,     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  Male  Workers,  Tailor  Shops,  1919. 
Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source:     Impartial  Chairman. 


% 

70 

% 

70 

60 

60 

50 

50 

40 

40 

30 

30 

?0 

20 

10 

10 

0 

^ 

^ 

0 

$' 

>noer' 

jAND 

mm 

QANO 
UNDER 

5  AND? 
UNDER 

QAND^ 

UNDER 

5AND3 
UNDER 

QANO  3 
UNDER 

5AND4 
UNDfR 

DANDJ 
UNDER 

5AND5 
UNDER 

nwDS 

UKDft 

viigtt 

OAWE 

jAm 

$ 

8.     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  Female  Workers,  Tailor  Shops,  1911. 

Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source:     U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics,  Bulletin  135. 


% 

70 

% 

70 

60 

60 

50 

50 

40 

B 

40 

30 

1 

30 

20 

ZO 

10 

10 

O^^l 

■ 

0 

*M.™.5.'!!!?IO.*!'?l5A«o? 

0AND2 

3ANO3 

OAND3 

5AND4) 

[)AND4 

5  AND  5 

OAND5 

5AND6 

0AND6 

5  AND 

1; 

4.     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  Female  Workers,  Tailor  Shops,  1919, 
Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source:     Impartial  Chairman. 


% 

70 

% 
70 

60 

60 

50 

SO 

40 

40 

30 

30 

?0 

20 

in 

h 

■ 

10 

0 

■ 

0 

$• 

;nder£ 

)ANDi 

Urn 

)ANO  ISANO^AND  ^5AND3nAND35AND40AND  ^ 
UNDER  UNDER    ONDU   UMD»   UNDK    UNDfR  UNDEK 

5AND5 

UNDER 

)AND5 
UNDER 

5AND6 

UNDER 

)AN06 

mm 

5AMD 
OVER 

$ 

WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  137 

house  as  a  unit.  For  the  purpose  of  this  classification  the 
average  earnings  for  each  complete  section  for  the  latest  four 
full  weeks  (eliminating  overtime)  shall  be  taken. 

"  To  the  piece  rates  of  all  sections,  the  average  earnings  in 
which  are  $28  or  under,  an  increase  of  20  per  cent,  shall  be 
added. 

"  To  the  piece  rates  of  all  sections,  the  average  earnings  in 
which  are  over  $28.01  to  $37.00,  an  increase  of  16  per  cent, 
shall  be  added. 

"  To  the  piece  work  rates  of  all  sections,  the  average  earn- 
ings in  which  are  over  $37.01,  an  increase  of  10  per  cent,  shall 
be  added. 

"  All  week  workers  in  tailor  shops  (excluding  all  superin- 
tendents, foremen,  section  heads  and  their  assistants,  and  all 
learners  employed  less  than  three  months  in  the  trade)  shall 
receive  an  increase,  in  addition  to  their  wage  rates,  of  $5.00 
per  week. 

"  All  cutters,  now  receiving  a  wage  of  $31  per  week  or  less, 
shall  receive  an  increase  of  $5.00  per  week,  and  all  who  are 
receiving  more  than  $31  shall  receive  an  increase  of  $4  per 
week. 

"All  experienced  clothing  cutters  (excluding  apprentices), 
hired  after  July  3rd,  shall  receive  a  wage  of  $37.00  per  week. 
All  regular  cutters,  excluding  apprentices,  whose  wages,  after 
having  received  the  increases  as  herein  provided,  shall  be  less 
than  $37.00,  shall  receive  a  further  increase  of  $1.00  per  month 
until  their  wages  equal  $37.00  per  week. 

**  All  trimmers  in  the  trimming  department  shall  receive  an 
addition  of  $5.00  per  week  to  their  weekly  wage  rates." 

In  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  the  same  raises  were 
granted  to  the  workers  by  agreement  between  the  union  and 
the  firm.  The  wage  adjustment  in  this  house  also  was  made 
retroactive,  as  in  the  other  houses  in  the  market,  to  June  1, 
1919. 

The  post-armistice  boom  in  general  business  was  then  in 
full  swing.  In  the  clothing  industry,  particularly,  there  was 
unusual  activity.  Retail  prices  for  clothing  were  going  up 
by  leaps  and  bounds  because  of  the  heavy  demand  by  con- 
sumers. The  cost  of  living  was  rising  rapidly.  Under  these 
circumstances,  many  clothing  workers  could  have  made  indi- 
vidual bargains  which  would  have  been  extremely  favorable 
to  themselves.     The  union,  however,  took  the  position  that 


138      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

all  gains  should  be  made  by  collective  bargaining.  It  held 
that  wage  adjustments  should  be  made  through  the  union 
and  that  such  wage  adjustments  should  so  far  as  possible  be 
made  so  as  to  benefit  all  the  workers  of  the  market  and  not 
only  particular  individuals.  It  accordingly  took  steps  to 
stabihze  rates  of  wages.  During  the  fall  season  of  1919, 
the  workers  in  the  Chicago  market  again  demonstrated  their 
solidarity  and  their  discipline  by  supporting  the  union's 
position. 

At  the  close  of  this  season  and  before  the  spring  manu- 
facturing season  opened,  the  union  presented  to  the  manu- 
facturers the  demand  of  the  workers  in  the  market  for  wage 
increases.  The  employers  asked  for  arbitration.  The  pro- 
ceedings came  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  under  the 
"  emergency  "  clause  of  the  agreement.  At  the  conclusion 
of  the  hearings,  the  Board  of  Arbitration  awarded  increases 
to  become  effective  December  15,  1919.  The  details  of  the 
wage  adjustment  were  as  follows: 

"An  increase  of  twenty  per  cent.  (20%)  shall  be  given  to 
sections  or  occupations  where  the  average  earnings  or  wages 
on  a  forty-four  hour  basis  are  thirty  dollars  or  less  per  week, 
and  five  per  cent.  (5%)  to  sections  where  the  average  earnings 
on  a  forty-four  hour  basis  are  fifty  dollars  or  more  per  week. 

"  An  increase  equivalent  to  $6.00  per  week  shall  be  given  to 
sections  where  the  average  earnings  are  from  $30.00  to  $50.00 
per  week.  An  increase  of  20%  shall  be  given  to  all  week  work- 
ers now  receiving  less  than  $30.00  per  week;  an  increase  of 
$6.00  per  week  to  week  workers  now  receiving  from  $30.00  to 
$49.99  per  week;  and  an  increase  of  5%  to  week  workers  now 
receiving  $50.00  or  more  per  week. 

**  In  piece  work  sections,  the  equivalent  of  the  increase  shall 
be  calculated  and  added  to  the  existing  piece  rates." 

The  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  his  decision 
in  this  case  pointed  out  that  labor  is  entitled  to  improve  its 
standards  of  living,  and  that  to  make  increases  proportionate 
only  to  the  rise  in  the  cost  of  living  would  defeat  the  workers' 
opportunity  for  progressive  improvement.  The  Board  also 
recognized  the  seasonal  character  of  the  clothing  industry 


WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  139 

and  the  greater  risk  undertaken  by  the  worker  because  of 
seasonal  variations  in  employment.  This  risk,  the  chairman 
held,  should  be  taken  into  account  in  determining  wages. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  in  connection  with  the  general 
award  of  December,  1919,  that  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in 
its  decision  followed  the  practice  begun  in  1916  by  the  Amal- 
gamated, of  rewarding  the  workers  in  the  poorly  paid  sec- 
tions most  and  giving  relatively  less  to  the  others. 

In  addition  to  the  increases  specifically  granted  in  the 
Board's  decision,  provision  was  made  for  increasing  the  earn- 
ings of  those  groups  whose  earnings  still  remained  below 
the  prevailing  market  levels. 

A  minimum  wage  for  learners  in  tailoring  shops  was  not 
fixed  in  the  decision  but  was  referred  to  a  special  commis- 
sion for  determination.  Acting  on  the  report  of  this  com- 
mission, the  Board|  of  Arbitration  fixed  a  standard  minimum 
wage  for  learners  of  $15.00  a  week,  effective  April  12,  1920. 
This  minimum  of  $15.00  a  week  was  based  in  part  on  the 
$16.00  minimum  for  apprentice  cutters  also  established  by 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  February  20,  1920.  The  mini- 
mum for  apprentice  cutters,  however,  had  been  a  matter  of 
discussion  before  the  December,  1919,  decision  and  had  been 
submitted  to  a  joint  committee  of  employers  and  employees 
for  settlement.  When  this  committee  failed  to  reach  an 
agreement,  the  question  was  settled  by  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion. The  minimum  for  apprentice  cutters  was  made  retro- 
active to  become  effective  October  1,  1919,  for  all  ap- 
prentices appointed  after  July  9,  1919. 

The  award  of  December,  1919,  provided  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  commission  to  fix  standards  of  production  in  the 
cutting  rooms  of  the  Chicago  market.  The  chairman  of  the 
Board  at  that  time  indicated  that,  when  these  standards  had 
been  fixed,  the  cutters  should  receive  a  further  increase  in 
addition  to  the  $6.00  a  week  given  them  in  the  award  of 
December,  1919.  A  partial  report  of  the  cutters'  commis- 
sion was  made  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  March  2, 
1920.  The  group  standards  of  production  set  by  the  com- 
mission were  approved  by  the  Board  and  a  minimum  stan- 


140     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

dard  wage  of  $45.00  fixed.  But  the  Board  in  the  following 
terms  defined  the  conditions  under  which  the  increase  should 
actually  be  paid: 

"  The  Board  decides  that  these  standards  should  be  effective 
immediately  on  notification  to  the  several  houses.  It  further 
announces  that  beginning  with  Monday,  March  8,  the  minimum 
standard  for  cutters  will  be  $45.00.  This  same  date  will  be 
regarded  as  the  date  for  the  whole  Chicago  industry,  but  no 
increase  shall  be  actually  paid  to  the  cutters  of  any  house  until 
standards  have  been  set  in  that  house.  The  reason  for  fixing 
this  date  for  all  houses  before  some  of  them  have  actually  had 
standards  fixed  by  the  Commission  is  to  avoid  unfairness  due  to 
delay  in  the  case  of  the  houses  visited  last." 

The  increase  effective  March  8, 1920,  was  confined  largely 
to  cutters  employed  in  special  order  houses.  In  a  later 
decision,  October  28,  1920,  the  Board  said  in  further  inter- 
pretation of  its  decision: 

"  This  minimum  standard  of  wage  was  intended  to  accom- 
pany a  standard  of  production  which  would  be  fixed  for  the 
several  houses  by  the  commission.  The  intent  of  the  decision, 
it  ought  to  be  unnecessary  to  state,  was  not  that  every  cutter 
in  every  house  should  receive  $45.00  irrespective  of  his  pro- 
duction, but  that  every  cutter  (or  every  group  of  cutters  where 
a  group  standard  has  been  set)  conforming  to  the  standard 
set  for  the  particular  house  in  question  should  receive  the 
$45.00." 

The  clothing  industry  was  one  of  the  first  industries  to 
feel  the  effects  of  the  industrial  depression  of  1920-1921. 
Sales  of  clothing  began  to  fall  off  in  April,  1920.  Never- 
theless, the  cost  of  living  continued  to  rise  so  that  by  July, 
1920,  the  worker  found  himself  receiving  virtually  10  per 
cent,  less  because  rates  of  wages  had  remained  stationary 
while  the  prices  of  food  and  other  necessities  had  increased. 
Despite  the  bad  business  outlook,  the  union  felt  it  its  duty 
to  present  the  needs  of  the  workers  first  to  the  manufacturers 
and  then  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  It  was  apparent, 
however,  that  the  clothing  industry  had  already  been  hard 
hit  by  the  industrial  depression.  The  Board  of  Arbitration 
therefore  ruled  that  no  increase  of  wages  would  be  justified 


5.     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  Cutters,  1911. 

Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source:     U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics,  Bulletin  135. 

% 
70 


60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 


% 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

ZO 

0 

■ 

0 

R 

m 

% 

|AND| 

)AND| 

5AN0e 

\mi 

5AND30AND3 

5AND4( 

]AN04 

5  AND  5 

VJ 

^.^^3 

0AND6 

5  AND 

6.     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  Cutters,  1919. 
Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source :     Impartial  Chairman. 


% 

70 

■ 

60 

1 

50 

1 

40 

1 

30 

1 

?.Q 

1 

10 

L 

0 

A_ 

$' 

mini 

)ANO| 
UNDER 

OANOI 

UNDER 

5AND? 
UKDeR 

QAHD? 

UNDER 

5AND3 
UNOK 

0AND35AND40AHD^ 
UNDER    UNDER  UNDER 

5AHO5 
UNDER 

OAND5 
UNDER 

5ANO6 
UNDER 

QANDg 
UNDER 

5  AND 
OVER 

% 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 
$ 


7.     Full-time  Weekly  Eaenings  or  All  Woekeks  in  Tailok. 
Shops,  and  Cutters,  Combined,  1911. 

Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source:     U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics,  Bulletin  186. 

% 
70 


60 
50 
40 
30 
ZO 
10 
0 


% 

■ 

60 

50 

40 

■ 

30 

1 

?0 

■ 

10 

0 

n 

mncDi 

)AND| 

OANOI 

5AND2 

QAND^ 

5AND3 

OAND] 

5AND4 

HMDl 

5AND50AHD55AND60ANO65AND 

8.     Full-time  Weekly  Earnings  of  All  Workers  in  Tailor 
Shops,  and  Cutters,  Combined,  1919. 
Distribution  by  Wage  Groups — Source :     Impartial  Chairman. 

% 
70 


60 

50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 


iuWfB  5*"''  n^  I5ANO20AMO  25AND30ANO35AM040AI(D  45AHO5OAIID  ^^Ml^MMtt) ^KW    & 


% 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

1 

^ 

■■ 

10 

^ 

1 

r 

I 

1 

I 

■ 

0 

WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  141 

at  that  time  (August,  1920).  It  ordered,  however,  the 
appointment  of  a  commission  to  study  the  problem  of  unem- 
ployment in  the  industry. 

Conditions  in  industry  generally  during  1920  became 
progressively  worse.  Industries,  one  by  one,  were  affected 
by  the  general  depression  in  industry  and  by  the  economic 
collapse  of  Europe.  The  slowing  down  of  industry  was  im- 
mediately accompanied  by  sharp  wage  cuts  in  unorganized 
industries.  Of  all  the  industries,  clothing  and  textiles  had 
been  hit  first  and  hardest.  The  employers  took  advantage  of 
lack  of  organization  among  the  workers  in  the  textile  in- 
dustries and  reduced  wages  22^/2  per  cent.  In  the  Chicago 
clothing  market,  manufacturers  presented  a  demand  to  the 
union  for  a  reduction  of  25  per  cent.  On  the  union's  objec- 
tion, the  case  went  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  for  decision. 
A  preliminary  conference  was  held  early  in  March  and  pub- 
lic hearings  on  March  23  and  24.  On  April  16,  1921,  the 
decision  was  announced.  It  provided  that  workers  in  tailor- 
ing sections,  who  had  been  increased  in  December,  1919,  by 
approximately  20  per  cent,  should  suffer  a  reduction  of  10 
per  cent,  and  that  those  workers  who  had  received  a  5  per 
cent,  increase  in  December,  1919,  should  be  reduced  by  the 
same  amount,  namely  5  per  cent. 

By  the  decision  of  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion the  workers  in  the  more  poorly  paid  sections  suffered 
the  largest  reductions.  In  this  respect  it  reversed  the  prac- 
tice first  begun  in  1916  of  giving  greater  advances  to  the 
lower  paid  workers  than  to  the  higher  paid  workers.  The 
chairman,  however,  held  that  since  the  workers  in  the  higher 
sections  had  received  only  a  5  per  cent,  increase  in  Decem- 
ber, 1919,  that  a  larger  cut  in  the  wages  of  these  workers 
would  bring  their  wages  below  the  standard  arrived  at  by 
agreement  between  the  manufacturers  and  the  union.  An 
arbitrator,  the  chairman  held,  was  not  justified  in  reducing 
wages  below  the  level  agreed  upon  in  joint  negotiation. 

The  decision  also  held  that  no  reduction  should  be  made  in 
the  wages  of  the  cutters.  The  chairman,  in  fact,  stated 
that  the  average  cutter  should  receive  $45.00  a  week.    Cut- 


142     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ters  were  classified  into  five  groups  with;  wages  ranging  from 
$4)1.00  to  $49.00  a  week.  Inclusion  in  a  higher  or  lower 
wage  class  was  made  dependent  on  output.  The  adminis- 
tration of  this  part  of  the  decision  was  entrusted  to  a  cut- 
ters' commission,  composed  of  representatives  of  both  parties, 
working  under  the  direction  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of 
Arbitration. 

This  brief  review  of  wages  has  necessarily  included  only 
general  wage  adjustments  affecting  the  whole  market.  Data 
are  not  available  relating  to  changes  in  individual  sections. 
It  is  possible,  however,  to  measure  the  earnings  in  1920  of 
the  clothing  workers  of  Chicago.  The  following  table, 
taken  from  figures  submitted  by  the  employers  in  the  arbi- 
tration proceedings  of  March,  1921,  shows,  for  the  larger 
houses  of  the  city,  the  average  earnings  of  men  and  women 
in  a  44-hour  week  of  uninterrupted  employment  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1920: 

AvEEAGE  Weekly  Wages,  1920. 
Firm.  Male.      Female. 

House    A $51.50  $37.48 

«        B 47.79  34.23 

«         C 47.79  33.84 

«        D 49.72  34.85 

"         E 52.73  44.25 

F 57.98  40.78 

G 49.23  36.45 

«        H 53.54  41.12 

Differences  that  appear  in  average  wages  in  the  various 
houses  do  not  entirely  reflect  differences  in  the  earning  power 
of  the  piece-work  rates.  Earnings  of  piece-workers  may  and 
do  vary  considerably  because  of  interruptions  in  the  flow 
of  work  and  differences  in  standards  of  quality. 

The  figures  submitted  by  the  manufacturers  present  a 
picture  of  wage  conditions  in  1920.  It  takes  only  a  com- 
parison of  these  figures  with  the  statistics  compiled  by  the 


WAGES  AND  HOURS,  1911-1921  148 

government  in  1911  to  show  the  gains  made  by  the  workers 
since  they  organized  eleven  years  ago: 

Average  Weeki^y  Earnings,  1911  and  1920. 

Full  Time         Hours  Per 
Weekly  Full  Time 

Earnings.  Week. 

Men  Workers — 

1911 $14.64  64 

1920 48.44  44 

Women  Workers — 

1911 $10.10  64 

1920 34.31  44 

Of  course,  the  value  of  a  dollar  in  1911,  measured  in  the 
amount  of  food  and  other  necessities  which  it  could  pur- 
chase, was  much  greater  than  in  1920.  Nevertheless,  making 
all  allowances  for  changes  in  prices  it  is  clear  that  the  gain 
in  wages  achieved  largely  through  organization  of  the 
workers  has  been  a  substantial  one.  The  wage  of  the  cloth- 
ing worker  is  no  longer  barely  enough  to  keep  body  and  soul 
together  as  it  was  when  the  union  came  into  being.  To-day, 
the  clothing  worker  does  not  have  to  depend  upon  charity 
during  the  slack  season  as  did  many  injthe  years  before  1911. 
The  organized  Chicago  clothing  worker  has  won  much  for 
himself,  his  family  and  his  fellows. 

Remarkable  as  has  been  the  progress  of  the  clothing 
worker  since  he  has  organized,  it  has  not  been  progress  of 
the  worker  at  the  expense  of  the  industry.  The  percentage 
of  labor  cost  in  the  garment  to-day  is  not  greater  than  it  was 
in,  1915.  In  fact,  much  of  the  advance  in  wages  has  resulted 
from  the  greater  efficiency  of  the  market.  The  Chicago 
clothing  industry  to-day  is  as  far  ahead  of  the  industry  in 
1910-1911  as  are  the  wages  of  the  worker  to-day  ahead  of 
the  wages  of  the  unorganized  worker  of  1910.  The  good 
will  and  efficiency  of  the  workers  have  contributed  in  full 
measure  to  this  progress. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS 

In  recent  years,  as  the  impartial  machinery  has  become 
more  firmly  established  and  has  been  extended  to  include  the 
entire  Chicago  clothing  market,  almost  all  of  the  changes  in 
general  market  wage  levels  have  been  made  by  decision  of 
the  Board  of  Arbitration.  The  settlement  of  the  problems 
of  market  wage  levels  by  arbitration  decision  has  not  done 
away  with  the  process  of  direct  negotiation  between  the  union 
representatives  and  the  representatives  of  the  manufac- 
turers. In  the  arbitration  of  wages  in  the  Chicago  market 
there  Jias  always  been  adequate  interchange  of  views  be- 
tween the  two  parties  concerned  before,  during,  and  after 
the  public  hearing. 

Wage  arbitrations  and  particularly  the  public  hearings 
held  as  a  part  of  the  proceedings  have  played  a  very  prom- 
inent part  in  the  history  of  wages  in  the  Chicago  clothing 
market.  The  method  of  determining  wage  levels  for  the 
market  after  hearing,  discussion  and  by  arbitration  decision 
has  been  an  important  factor  in  building  up  the  collective 
bargaining  process  and  securing  stability  in  wage  levels. 
Under  this  plan  wage  levels  have  been  adjusted  not  for  the 
workers  in  a  single  section  or  even  for  an  individual  shop  but 
for  the  market  as  a  whole  and  with  some  regard  for  the  inter- 
relation of  markets. 

Wage  arbitration  has  also  tended  to  lessen  change  in  levels 
arising  from  shifting  of  the  bargaining  power  of  the  parties 
during  a  manufacturing  season.  In  a  seasonal  industry  such 
considerations  are  pecuUarly  important.  The  procedure  of 
wage  arbitrations  developed  in  Chicago  has  placed  emphasis 
on  the  permanent  factors  rather  than  seasonal  influences 
affecting  the  wage  problem  and  has  thus  placed  a  firmer 
foundation  under  the  wage  structure  of  the  market.    In  this 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     145 

way  the  great  wage  arbitrations  have  helped  to  give  the 
stability  sought  for  by  the  union. 

From  another  standpoint  wage  arbitrations  in  the  Chicago 
market  are  important.  The  Board  of  Arbitration  has  de- 
rived its  authority  to  fix  wages  from  the  so-called  "  emer- 
gency clause  "  of  the  agreement.  This  clause  reads  as  fol- 
lows: 

"  If  there  shall  be  a  general  change  in  wages  or  hours  in  the 
clothing  industry,  which  shall  be  sufficiently  permanent  to 
warrant  the  belief  that  the  change  is  not  temporary,  then  the 
Board  shall  have  power  to  determine  whether  such  change  is  of 
so  extraordinary  a  nature  as  to  justify  a  consideration  of  the 
question  of  making  a  change  in  the  present  agreement,  and,  if 
so,  then  the  Board  shall  have  power  to  make  such  changes  in 
wages  or  hours  as  in  its  judgment  shall  be  proper." 

Wages  having  been  usually  fixed  by  direct  negotiation 
when  the  agreements  are  entered  into,  the  Board  may  be  said 
to  be  called  upon,  in  a  sense,  to  determine  what  changes  are 
"  proper."  In  the  absence  of  a  generally  agreed  upon  stand- 
ard of  "  proper  "  wages,  the  several  proceedings  in  Chicago 
illustrate  the  limitations  which  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  have  themselves  placed  upon  their  own  authority 
to  fix  wages. 

The  Board  of  Arbitration,  set  up  under  the  agreement 
between  the  union  and  the  manufacturers  in  Chicago,  func- 
tions continuously  during  the  life  of  the  agreement.  More- 
over, although  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Company  has 
a  separate  agreement  and  separately  constituted  impartial 
arbitration"  machinery,  the  personnel  of  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration of  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement  and  of 
the  general  market  is  the  same.  In  the  wage  arbitrations  be- 
ginning with  December,  1919,  all  manufacturers  have  been 
represented  and  a  single  proceeding  has  been  held  for  the 
whole  market.  The  permanent  character  of  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  has  permitted  the  appointment  of  special  com- 
missions to  report  on  questions  raised  in  wage  arbitrations 
which  require  detailed  study  for  later  decision  by  the  Board 
without  delaying  an  immediate  decision  on  other  issues. 
Commissions  have  also  been  appointed  to  work  out  the  de- 


146     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

tailed  application  of  wage  awards,  when  that  procedure  has 
been  necessary  to  carry  out  the  full  intent  of  the  Board's 
decisions.  These  commissions  are  usually  composed  of  rep- 
resentatives of  the  employers  and  of  the  union  and  an  im- 
partial chairman.  They  have  contributed  much  to  the  suc- 
cess of  wage  arbitration  in  the  market. 

These  public  discussions  of  wages,  moreover,  have  had  an 
important  educational  value.  Workers  have  learned  much 
about  their  industry  and  about  industrial  conditions  gen- 
erally. They  have  become  aware  of  the  individual  working- 
man's  position  in  the  market,  and  of  the  relation  of  the 
Chicago  market  to  the  whole  clothing  industry  of  the 
country.  Manufacturers,  likewise,  have  seen  the  plane  of 
wage  controversies  raised  to  new  levels,  where  facts  counted 
more  than  fancy.  And  the  pubHc  has  been  granted  an  in- 
sight into  the  operations  of  a  typical  industry,  which  has 
proved  invaluable  as  a  basis  for  forming  sound  judgments 
on  the  character  of  industrial  conflicts. 

Strictly  speaking,  the  arbitration  method  was  resorted  to 
in  the  determination  of  wages  in  1911  when  the  first  agree- 
ment was  signed  in  the  Chicago  market,  and  again  in  1913  in 
settling  certain  questions  involving  major  working  condi- 
tions. But  it  was  not  until  1917  that  a  request  for  a  general 
increase  in  wages  was  submitted  to  the  regularly  established 
Board  of  Arbitration,  and  it  has  only  been  since  the  general 
agreement,  including  all  manufacturers  of  men's  clothing  in 
the  Chicago  market,  was  signed  in  May,  1919,  that  wage 
arbitration  has  been  the  regular  practice  in  the  market. 

In  the  arbitration  of  wages  in  1917  the  only  workers 
affected  directly  were  those  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx, 
which  alone  at  that  time  recognized  and  dealt  with  the  Amal- 
gamated. It  will  be  recalled  that  in  May,  1916,  the  union 
secured  an  increase  when  the  agreement  with  the  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx  Company  for  a  three-year  period  ending 
April  30,  1919,  became  effective.  Because  of  the  continued 
rise  in  the  cost  of  living  the  union  raised  the  question  of  a 
general  wage  increase  shortly  after  the  beginning  of  the  fall 
manufacturing  season  of  1917.    The  union  asked  for  a  gen- 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     147 

eral  advance  in  the  wage  level  to  make  up  for  the  loss  result- 
ing from  higher  prices  for  the  necessaries  of  life.  Higher 
wages  were  also  asked  because  there  had  already  occurred 
wage  increases  in  the  clothing  industry  and  in  other  in- 
dustries. 

The  company,  while  admitting  that  the  cost  of  living  had 
risen  since  the  wage  adjustment  made  by  the  1916  agree- 
ment, contended  that  the  average  earnings  of  the  workers, 
particularly  of  piece  workers,  had  in  fact  increased  from  30 
to  35  per  cent.  The  company  pointed  out  that  as  a  result 
of  the  greater  volume  of  employment  earnings  had  risen 
though  wage  levels  had  remained  constant.  It  held,  also, 
that  to  grant  a  wage  increase  after  the  prices  of  the  fall 
season  had  been  fixed  and  sales  had  been  made  on  the  basis 
of  these  prices  would  be  unfair.  The  company  would  lose 
the  entire  amount  of  the  increase  granted  the  workers  as 
sales  had  already  been  made,  and  it  would  have  no  opportun- 
ity to  pass  the  increased  burden  of  higher  wages  on  to  the 
consumers.  Properly  the  company  maintained  increased 
wages  should  be  added  to  the  cost  of  the  goods  and  should  not 
come  out  of  the  company's  margin  between  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction and  selling  price. 

The  Board  of  Arbitration  ruled  that  the  workers  had 
already  suffered  heavily  in  the  diminished  purchasing  power 
of  their  wages.  While  admitting,  in  principle,  the  employ- 
ers' claims,  it  held  that  the  emergency  was  such  that  an  im- 
mediate increase  in  wages  was  warranted.  The  Board  of 
Arbitration  awarded  to  the  workers  a  general  advance  in 
wages.  The  wages  of  all  workers,  except  cutters,  were  in- 
creased by  10  per  cent.  The  wages  of  the  cutters  were  in- 
creased a  fixed  amount — $2.35  per  week — ^which  was  ap- 
proximately 10  per  cent,  of  the  average  weekly  earnings  of 
the  cutters  at  that  time. 

The  Board  further  ruled  that  any  request  for  wage  ad- 
justments during  the  term  of  the  agreement  must  be  made  in 
advance  of  sales  for  the  season  affected.  Thus  the  Board 
recognized  the  contention  of  the  employer  that  he  should 
have  the  opportunity  to  pass  wage  adjustments  on  to  the 


148     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

consumers.    The  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  this 
case,  given  June  2,  1917,  is  as  foUows: 

**  The  claims  of  the  workers  were  explained  to  the  Board  by 
Mr.  Sidney  Hillman,  international  president  of  the  Amalga- 
mated Clothing  Workers  of  America.  He  stated  that  the  ap- 
plication was  made  primarily  because  of  the  enormously  in- 
creased cost  of  living  which  had  so  diminished  the  purchasing 
power  of  money  that  it  was  virtually  equivalent  to  a  reduction 
in  wages.  He  stated  also  that  in  response  to  this  condition 
wages  had  been  generally  advanced  in  the  clothing  industry, 
that  so  far  as  human  foresight  could  perceive  the  condition 
was  a  permanent  one,  and  that  the  extraordinary  situation 
which  existed  fully  met  the  requirements  of  the  provision  of  the 
agreement  under  which  application  for  a  readjustment  of  wages 
was  brought.  He  made  no  specific  demand,  nor  did  he  expect 
a  full  equivalent  for  the  losses  sustained  by  the  workers  by 
reason  of  war  prices  and  conditions,  but  he  maintained  that  a 
measure  of  relief  should  be  granted,  and  the  workers  should 
not  be  required  to  bear  all  the  burden  of  a  common  calamity. 

"  The  company,  through  its  representatives,  acknowledged 
the  claim  of  increased  cost  of  living  but  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  since  1915  the  average  earnings  of  the  people  had 
increased  from  thirty  to  thirty-five  per  cent.,  due  to  the  fuller 
employment  brought  about  by  a  larger  volume  of  business. 

**  More  important,  however,  was  the  fact  that  the  goods  in 
the  process  of  manufacture  for  the  fall  season  were  already  sold 
at  prices  that  were  agreed  on  before  the  present  claim  was 
made,  and  this  fact  should  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the 
arbitrators  in  adjudicating  the  case. 

**  The  Board  of  Arbitration  approaches  the  decision  of  the 
question  submitted  to  it  with  a  deep  sense  of  responsibility. 
The  cause  of  our  common  distress  is  a  national  calamity  which 
it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  Board  to  remove  or  ameliorate. 
All  that  it  has  power  to  do  is  to  readjust  the  burden  so  that  it 
may  not  fall  too  heavily  on  the  weaker  party. 

**  It  admits  the  truth  of  the  claim  that  any  advance  granted 
in  mid-season  must  come  out  of  the  company,  and  it  recognizes 
the  fact  that  ordinarily,  increased  wages  should  be  added  to 
the  cost  of  the  goods,  and  passed  on  to  the  consumer.  But  this 
is  an  extraordinary  occasion.  The  workers  have  already  suf- 
fered heavily  in  the  diminished  purchasing  power  of  their  wages 
and  throughout  the  clothing  and  other  industries  wage  increases 
have  been  made  in  response  to  the  war  prices  which  afflict  the 
country.     The  Board  believes  that,  on  reflection,  the  company 


Leo  Krzjcki 


Nettie  Richardson 


Jack  Kroll  Eniilio  Grandinetti 

National  Organizers,  Chicago  Campaign,  1919 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     14^ 

can  hardly  expect  to  pass  through  the  present  war  crisis  and 
not  share  a  part  of  the  loss  which  falls  so  heavily  on  its  work- 
ers, and,  indeed,  on  all  members  of  the  community.  It  accord- 
ingly decides  that  the  company  shall  give  its  workers  a  general 
advance  of  ten  per  cent,  to  be  paid  in  the  following  manner : 

*'  All  workers  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Board,  except  the 
cutters,  shall  receive  a  horizontal  advance  in  wages  of  ten  per 
cent.,  to  take  effect  July  1, 1917. 

"  The  cutters  shall  receive  an  equivalent  of  ten  per  cent,  con- 
verted into  a  uniform  flat  weekly  increase,  which  is  agreed  to 
be  $2.35  per  week  for  each  cutter,  whether  temporary  or  per- 
manent, and  also  apprentices.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  other 
departments  have  received  more  direct  advances  of  wages  than 
the  cutters,  it  is  decided  that  the  cutters'  increase  shall  go  inta 
effect  June  1,  1917. 

"  It  is  decided  that  these  increases  shall  be  recorded  separate- 
ly by  the  company ;  that  it  shall  take  the  place  of  the  increase 
of  pay  asked  for  on  behalf  of  the  week  workers  in  the  tailor 
shops ;  and  in  the  event  of  any  other  claim  being  made  under 
the  emergency  clause  of  the  agreement,  that  such  claims  must 
be  made  in  advance  of  sales  for  the  affected  season  being  made 
by  the  company  in  order  to  be  entitled  to  recognition  by  the^ 
Board  of  Arbitration. 

"  In  the  case  of  week-workers,  the  increase  shall  be  calcu- 
lated from  the  payroll  of  the  last  week  in  May,  1917." 

FIRST  MARKET  WAGE  ARBITRATION,  DECEMBER,  1919 

The  first  wage  arbitration  covering  the  whole  Chicago 
market  was  held  in  December,  1919.  All  the  firms  in  the 
market  mider  agreement  with  the  Amalgamated  Clothing^ 
Workers  participated.  The  case  was  filed  on  December  9th, 
a  formal  hearing  was  held  on  December  13th  and  decision 
was  made  on  the  22d  of  the  same  month. 

The  imion  presented  as  reasons  for  a  wage  increase: 

1.  The  increased  cost  of  living. 

2.  The  need  for  improvement  in  standards  of  living. 

3.  The  great  demand  for  labor  in  this  industry  which  would 
have  permitted  greatly  increased  wages  by  bargains  made  by 
individual  workers  had  not  the  union  stabilized  and  moderated 
rates  of  wages  during  the  previous  manufacturing  season. 

4.  The  increases  of  wages  already  granted  workers  in  the 
men's  clothing  industry  in  other  cities. 


150     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

5.  The  increased  efficiency  of  the  industry  resulting  from 
constant  production  not  interrupted  by  strikes  or  other  indus- 
trial disturbances.  Costs  had  been  reduced  by  eliminating  the 
waste  resulting  from  such  disturbances.  The  union  had  also 
made  an  important  social  contribution  in  maintaining  order  and 
peace  in  industry  in  the  midst  of  greatly  disturbed  conditions 
in  the  labor  world.  It  held(  that  the  pohcy  pursued  by  the 
union  should  properly  be  considered  in  the  fixing  of  wages. 

6.  The  efficiency  which  the  Chicago  market  derives  from 
being  a  piece  work  market. 

The  union  in  Chicago  had  brought  the  matter  of  increased 
wages  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  after  increases  had  already 
been  granted  in  the  principal  clothing  markets  of  the  country 
through  negotiation.  The  union,  therefore,  in  this  instance 
primarily  rested  its  case  upon  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  liv- 
ing since  May,  1919,  and  the  increase  of  wages  granted  in 
the  other  markets.  At  the  same  time,  however,  the  union 
raised  a  number  of  new  points  to  which  it  directed  attention. 

It  should  be  recalled  that  at  this  time  prices  of  all  com- 
modities were  rising  rapidly.  Charges  of  profiteering  were 
frequent  in  all  industries.  Many  of  these  charges  were 
directed  against  the  men's  clothing  industry.  In  many  in- 
stances, not  alone  in  the  clothing  industry  but  in  other  in- 
dustries as  well,  high  prices  were  attributed  to  profiteering 
by  labor.  The  union,  therefore,  welcomed  the  opportunity 
afforded  by  the  public  hearing  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
pubhc  the  significant  facts  as  they  were  in  the  clothing 
industry. 

The  union  told  of  the  pohcy  it  had  made  eflPective  in  the 
Chicago  clothing  industry  of  stabiHzing  and  moderating 
rates  of  wages  during  the  fall  manufacturing  season  of  1919 
when  there  was  an  extraordinary  demand  for  workers.  Dur- 
ing that  season  it  had  not  permitted  workers  to  secure  ad- 
vances which,  because  of  the  circumstances  then  prevailing, 
they  would  have  been  able  to  secure  by  individual  bargaining. 
The  union  prevented  the  individual  worker  from  holding  up 
production  by  asking  for  a  wage  increase,  and  insisted  that 
all  increases  and  improvements  in  working  conditions  should 
be  made  by  collective  bargaining.    Market  conditions  were 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     151 

thus  stabilized.  The  union  had  consistently  held  to  this 
policy  at  a  time  when  prices  were  rising  in  all  lines  of  trade, 
including  clothing,  and  when  the  margins  of  manufacturers 
and  retailers  were  increasing  rapidly.  This  poHcy  of  stabiliz- 
ing wage  conditions  did  much  for  the  principle  of  collective 
bargaining  in  the  Chicago  market  and  set  a  firm  foimdation 
for  the  impartial  machinery,  then  only  beginning  its  work. 

Moreover,  the  union  pointed  out  that  the  increased  efii- 
ciency  of  the  clothing  industry  and  of  the  Chicago  market,  in 
particular  resulting  from  the  policy  adopted  and  carried  out 
by  the  union,  justified  an  increase  in  wages.  The  pohcy  of 
the  union  for  order  and  peace  in  the  industry  had  been  of 
great  value.  It  had  maintained  constant  production.  It  had 
stabilized  market  conditions.  It  had  developed  good-will 
and  a  sense  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  workers.  All 
of  these  factors  had  tended  to  reduce  costs  in  a  period  when 
other  costs  and  prices  were  being  pyramided  sky  high.  The 
worker,  the  union  contended,  had  made  this  contribution  to 
the  efficiency  of  the  industry  and  was  entitled  to  share  in  the 
savings  which  had  resulted  therefrom. 

The  extension  of  piece  work  in  Chicago  had  also  put  this 
market  in  a  position  to  pay  its  workers  certainly  as  much  as 
they  were  being  paid  in  less  efficient  markets.  Finally,  the 
union  pointed  out  that  the  workers  in  the  industry  are 
entitled  to  a  progressive  improvement  in  their  standard  of 
living,  provided  the  industry  could  afford  to  meet  such 
standards. 

The  position  of  the  employers,  on  the  other  hand,  was  that 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  should  not  at  that  time  allow  wage 
increases  because : 

1.  Increases  in  wages  in  the  industry  had  more  than  kept 
pace  with  increased  cost  of  living. 

2.  Whatever  may  have  been  true  of  the  demand  for  labor 
and  the  consequent  market  rate  of  wages,  there  was  at  that 
time  a  paramount  duty  to  the  pubUc  not  to  increase  the  cost 
of  necessaries  of  life  unless  there  was  a  real  exigency,  which 
in  this  case  did  not  exist. 

3.  Employes  in  this  industry  were  in  a  highly  favorable 
condition   as   compared  with  those  in  other  industries,   both 


152     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

national  and  local,  when  it  was  realized  that  only  about  one- 
third  of  those  employed  were  heads  of  families. 

4.  Since  deflation  was  bound  to  come  sooner  or  later,  every 
increase  which  adds  to  costs  has  a  tendency  in  the  wrong  direc- 
tion, and  will  make  the  inevitable  shrinkage  more  keenly  felt. 

5.  The  indirect  effects  on  prices  and  industry  of  any  in- 
crease in  wages  at  this  time  ought  to  be  considered. 

6.  Local  conditions  in  the  Chicago  market,  both  within  the 
industry  and  in  the  relation  of  this  to  other  industries,  made 
any  change  undesirable  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  agreement  into  which  many  of  the  firms  had  just 
recently  entered. 

The  Board  of  Arbitration  asked  for  and  secured  from  both 
the  manufacturers  and  the  union  statistics  showing  compara- 
tive earnings  for  the  full  time  44-hour  week  in  Chicago  and 
in  other  markets ;  wage  increases  granted  in  the  market  since 
1913;  changes  in  the  cost  of  living  as  reported  by  govern- 
ment agencies;  age  and  marital  condition  of  workers  with 
special  reference  to  the  number  of  their  dependents;  and 
comparisons  of  wages  in  clothing  with  other  Chicago  in- 
dustries. In  this  arbitration  proceeding  for  the  first  time, 
studies  of  earnings  and  wage  rates  in  the  Chicago  and  other 
clothing  markets  were  made.  The  collection  of  these  valu- 
able data  was  itself  a  large  contribution  to  the  knowledge  of 
wages  and  working  conditions  in  one  of  the  important  organ- 
ized industries  of  the  country. 

The  decision  of  the  arbitrator.  Prof.  James  H.  Tufts,  is 
of  particular  significance  for  its  penetrating  analysis  of  the 
issues  presented  by  both  employers  and  employees.  There 
had  been  increases  granted  in  competing  markets.  There 
had  been  an  increase  in  the  cost  of  living  since  the  agreement 
was  signed  in  May.  The  arbitrator  might  have  based  his 
decision  for  an  increase  solely  on  these  two  points.  He 
seized  the  opportunity,  however,  to  discuss  certain  of  the 
underlying  implications  in  the  wage  problem  and  to  bring  to 
the  attention  of  the  industry  and  the  pubHc  in  very  illuminat- 
ing fashion  the  conditions  in  the  clothing  industry  under  the 
agreement  as  they  affected  the  worker,  the  industry,  and  the 
consumer. 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     153 

It  was  the  arbitrator's  opinion  that  the  main  question  in- 
volved was  whether  a  group  of  workers  should  be  permitted 
under  the  agreement  between  the  employes  and  the  manu- 
facturers to  avail  itself  of  its  bargaining  strength  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  progressive  improvements  in  its  standard 
of  living.  To  this  question  the  chairman  made  the  following 
answer : 

"  In  answering  this  question,  the  Board  believes  that  it  must 
be  governed  largely,  although  not  exclusively,  by  the  prevailing 
principles  and  policies  of  the  country  as  embodied  in  its  insti- 
tutions. In  endeavoring  to  give  a  just  decision,  the  Board 
does  not  feel  warranted  in  setting  up  a  standard  too  widely  at 
variance  with  our  present  social  and  economic  order. 

"  The  principles  and  pohcies  of  the  United  States  are,  with 
certain  quahfications,  those  of  individualism,  or  the  competitive 
system.  This  means  that  prices,  wages  and  profits  are  fixed 
by  bargaining  under  the  forces  of  supply  and  demand.  This 
general  principle  is  qualified  and  Hmited  in  the  case  of  *  property 
affected  with  a  public  interest,'  such  as  railways.  In  private, 
as  distinguished  from  pubhc  or  semi-public  business  and  in- 
dustry, there  is  a  moral  disapproval  on  the  one  hand  for  such 
extremely  low  wages  as  make  a  decent  standard  of  living  impos- 
sible, and,  on  the  other  hand,  for  extreme  increases  in  the 
prices  of  necessaries  of  life,  but  there  is  no  general  disapproval 
of  the  general  principle  of  profiting  by  market  conditions.  In 
time  of  national  emergency,  we  used  the  word  *  profiteer '  to 
condemn  taking  advantage  of  the  country's  need  for  an  un- 
reasonable private  gain.  But  in  ordinary  time,  there  is  as  yet 
no  recognized  standard  for  the  fairness  of  prices  of  various 
goods,  or  for  relative  wages  in  different  industries,  other  than 
what  bargainers  agree  upon.  This  method  may  often  fail  to 
give  justice  as  measured  by  various  other  standards  of  merit 
or  desert.  But  for  the  most  part,  labor  has  had  to  bargain 
for  its  wages,  and  it  cannot  be  expected  to  forego  entirely  the 
advantages  which  market  conditions  now  afford. 

"  Coming,  then,  to  the  specific  concrete  situation  which  con- 
fronts us,  we  have  the  outstanding  fact  that  very  substantial 
increases  to  clothing  workers  have  been  granted  in  all  the  other 
principal  markets  in  this  country  and  Canada,  and  in  many 
less  important  centers.  These  increases  have  usually  been  five 
or  six  dollars  a  week;  in  some  cases,  they  have  been  more.  In 
these  days  when  both  employers  and  workers  know  of  such 
increases  and  plan  accordingly,  it  is  not  practicable  to  treat 


154     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  Chicago  market  as  an  entirely  distinct  situation  to  be  judged 
on  its  own  merits,  without  reference  to  what  is  going  on  else- 
where in  the  country." 

The  Board  also  pointed  out  that  it  would  be  unfair  to 
adopt  the  position  taken  by  the  employers  and  regulate  only 
the  use  of  bargaining  power  by  labor.  To  adopt  such  an 
attitude  would  be  in  effect,  to  regulate  labor  and  let  capital, 
management  and  retailers  take  advantage  of  market  condi- 
tions without  any  restraint.  Such  actions  would  be  tanta- 
mount to  setting  up  a  moral  standard  for  labor  alone  and 
none  for  management  or  capital. 

"  It  may  be  said,"  wrote  Chairman  Tufts,  "  in  the  first  place, 
that  if  there  is  to  be  public  regulation  of  any  industry  or  moral 
judgment  upon  wages  or  prices,  this  should  apply  to  every 
stage  in  the  production  and  marketing;  it  applies  to  profits  as 
well  as  to  labor.  It  must  consider  not  merely  figures  as  to 
prices  and  wages,  but  the  actual  efiiciency  or  wastefulness  of  the 
methods  of  production  and  marketing." 

Moreover,  if  the  bargaining  power  of  labor  alone  were 
controlled  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  consuming  pubUc  for 
whose  benefit  the  control  was  presumed  to  be  exercised, 
would  receive  the  advantage  from  such  control.  For  the 
"  prices  of  clothing,"  the  decision  held,  "  have  advanced  and 
are  certain  to  be  further  advanced  whatever  may  be  the 
decision  of  this  case."  Prices  did  advance.  The  Board  rec- 
ognized the  competitive  nature  of  the  clothing  industry  and 
the  fact  that  prices  were  not  fixed  for  the  Chicago  market 
alone  but  for  the  entire  industry  and  that  the  increase  in 
the  labor  cost  in  the  manufacture  of  clothing  would  mean 
only  a  relatively  small  increase  in  the  total  cost  when  sold 
at  retail. 

After  disposing  of  the  main  question.  Professor  Tufts 
took  occasion  to  discuss  two  other  important  aspects  of  the 
wage  problem  in  the  men's  clothing  industry.  In  the  first 
place,  he  said,  the  seasonal  character  of  the  clothing  industry, 
in  which  there  is  no  guarantee  against  unemployment,  must 
be  taken  into  accoimt.  In  such  an  industry  there  must  be 
the  same  recognition  of  the  principle  that  greater  risk  en- 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     155 

titles  the  worker  to  higher  wages  just  as  it  is  generally  con- 
ceded that  capital  is  entitled  to  greater  profits  in  an  industry 
where  the  risk  is  greater  than  in  an  industry  where  capital  is 
secure  and  its  returns  stable. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Board  of  Arbitration  considered 
itself  under  obHgation  to  reward  the  contribution  of  the 
union  in  its  insistence  on  wage  stabilization.  This  policy  has 
resulted  in  continuous  production  and  peace  and  order  in  the 
industry.  "  The  industry,"  said  Chairman  Tufts,  "  as  now 
organized  under  agreements  which  aim  to  substitute  reason 
for  force,  is  performing  an  important  public  service."  This 
public  service,  the  Board  held,  must  be  considered  in  fixing 
wages. 

The  specific  terms  of  the  award  were : 

"  Beginning  December  15,  1919,  an  increase  shall  be  added 
to  the  piece-and  wage-rates  now  in  existence  under  the  agree- 
ments, in  the  shops  of  the  firms  and  their  contractors.  The 
new  rates  thus  established  shall  prevail  up  to  June  1st,  1920, 
except  when  detailed  changes  may  be  ordered  by  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  on  recommendation  of  either  of  the  Trade  Boards. 

*'  The  increase  shall  be  applied  as  follows : 

"An  increase  of  twenty  per  cent.  (20%)  shall  be  given  to 
sections  or  occupations  where  the  average  earnings  or  wages 
on  a  forty-four  hour  basis  are  thirty  dollars  or  less  per  week, 
and  five  per  cent.  (5%)  to  sections  where  the  average  earnings 
on  a  forty-four  hour  basis  are  fifty  dollars  or  more  per  week. 
An  increase  equivalent  to  $6.00  per  week  shall  be  given  to  sec- 
tions where  the  average  earnings  are  from  $30.00  to  $49.99 
per  week. 

"  An  increase  of  20%  shall  be  given  to  all  week  workers  now 
receiving  less  than  $30.00  per  week ;  an  increase  of  $6.00  per 
week  to  week  workers  now  receiving  $50.00  or  more  per  week. 

**  In  piece  work  sections,  the  equivalent  of  the  increase  shall 
be  calculated  and  added  to  the  existing  piece  rates." 

In  addition  to  the  specific  increases  above  granted,  the 
Board  ruled  it  was  its  purpose  to  bring  the  earnings  of 
underpaid  sections  up  to  the  market  level  and  that  it  would 
grant  further  increases  to  such  sections.  A  commission 
known  as  the  "  Leveling  Commission  "  was  created.     This 


156     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

commission  was  authorized  to  investigate  relative  disparities 
in  rates  now  existing  in  the  market,  and  to  make  recommen- 
dations for  increases  to  sections  earning  less  than  the  market 
level.  This  recommendation  fixed  market  norms  for  many  of 
the  operations.  The  work  was  completed  March  15,  1920. 
It  was  the  intent  of  the  commission  to  fix  piece  work  rates 
that  would  yield  to  the  worker  equal  earnings  for  equal  effort 
and  skill.  The  work  of  the  "  Leveling  Conmaission,"  there- 
fore, resulted  in  a  large  measure  of  wage  standardization. 

Another  commission  was  created  under  the  chairmanship 
of  Dr.  Millis,  with  equal  representation  of  employers  and 
workers,  to  determine  standards  of  production  for  cutters 
and  to  make  recommendations  for  a  standard  wage  for  these 
workers.  Group  standards  of  production  for  cutters  and 
a  scale  of  $45,  to  become  effective  when  the  group  standards 
were  made  effective,  was  recommended  by  the  commission 
and  approved  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  March,  1920. 

The  award  did  not  fix  a  minimum  wage  for  inexperienced 
workers  in  the  tailor  shops.  It,  however,  provided  for  a 
commission  to  go  into  the  matter  more  fully  and  make  a 
report  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  In  March,  1920,  the 
Board  approved  the  recommendation  of  the  commission 
that  a  minimum  wage  of  $15.00  per  week  be  paid  to  learners 
"  employed  less  than  three  months  in  the  trade."  A  minimum 
wage  for  workers  in  the  cutting  and  trimming  rooms  was 
already  in  effect. 

AN  UNEMPLOYMENT  INSURANCE  FUND 

Early  in  1920  the  imion  turned  its  attention  to  the  prob- 
lem of  unemployment.  At  that  time  industry,  generally,  in 
the  United  States  was  operating  at  capacity.  The  clothing 
industry,  although  generally  regarded  as  a  seasonal  industry 
under  ordinary  conditions,  had  been  active  continuously 
without  seasonal  lulls  for  several  years.  In  the  early  months 
of  1920  there  were  no  signs  of  an  interruption  in  the  indus- 
trial activity  of  the  country.  The  union  officials  realized, 
however,  that  it  is  just  at  such  a  time  that  preparations 
must  be  made  to  meet  the  problem  of  unemployment  which 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     157 

had  recurred  in  the  past  from  time  to  time  and  which  would 
undoubtedly  recur  in  the  future.  In  previous  years  the 
clothing  worker  had  been  subject  to  more  or  less  regular 
periods  of  unemployment  every  year  because  of  seasonal 
fluctuations  that  affected  the  men's  clothing  industry  alone, 
and  to  longer  but  less  regular  periods  of  imemployment 
arising  from  general  industrial  depressions.  The  union 
therefore,  early  in  1920,  undertook  to  present  a  plan  for 
the  solution  of  this  most  important  problem.  At  the  biennial 
convention  of  the  Amalgamated  in  May,  1920,  a  resolution 
which  stated  the  union's  position  in  the  following  terms  was 
adopted : 

"  Justice  dictates  that  the  industry,  which  depends  upon  the 
workers  to  keep  alive,  should  take  care  of  them  when  they  are 
unemployed. 

"  That  can  be  done  only  by  the  creation  of  a  special  fund  for 
the  payment  of  unemployment  wages ;  no  gift  and  no  alms,  but 
wages  from  the  industry  to  the  worker.  There  is  no  reason 
why  the  industry,  which  pays  a  permanent  tax  to  the  various 
insurance  companies  in  order  to  indemnify  the  employer  in  case 
of  an  emergency,  should  not  likewise  have  a  permanent  fund 
for  indemnification  for  lack  of  work.  The  welfare  of  the  work- 
ers in  the  industry  should  be  entitled  to  at  least  as  much  con- 
sideration as  the  property  of  the  employer. 

"  The  Committee,  therefore,  recommends  that  the  convention 
go  on  record  in  favor  of  the  creation  of  an  unemployment  fund. 
It  is  our  opinion  that  such  a  fund  should  be  created  by  the 
weekly  payment  by  the  employers  of  a  given  percentage  of  the 
payroll  of  our  members,  which  shall  not  be  deducted  from  the 
payroll  but  paid  into  the  fund  in  addition  to  the  payroll." 

This  resolution  empowered  the  general  executive  board 
to  work  out  methods  for  the  administration  of  such  a  fund 
and  authorized  the  executive  board  to  take  such  steps  as 
it  thought  necessary  to  bring  this  matter  to  the  attention  of 
the  industry. 

At  the  close  of  the  spring  manufacturing  season  of  1920 
there  was  a  sharp  falling  off  in  the  sales  of  clothing  at  retail. 
The  result  was  an  almost  immediate  curtailment  of  activity 
in  the  men's  clothing  industry.  Workers  in  the  Chicago 
market,  particularly  those  paid  on  a  piece  basis,  had  much 


158     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

less  work.  Though  wage  rates  remained  the  same,  the  earn- 
ings of  workers  were  necessarily  greatly  lessened.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  cost  of  living  was  still  rising  and  continued 
to  rise  until  by  late  spring  it  was  fully  ten  per  cent,  higher 
than  in  December,  1919.  The  Chicago  clothing  workers 
were  faced  with  the  problem  of  making  both  ends  meet  when 
their  earnings  were  falling  and  prices  rising. 

The  union  therefore  presented  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
the  request  of  its  membership  for  relief.  The  union  asked 
for  an  increase  in  wages  to  compensate  the  workers  for  the 
loss  in  the  purchasing  power  of  their  wages  resulting  from 
the  rise  in  prices,  and  for  the  establishment  of  an  unemploy- 
ment insurance  fund,  as  had  been  urged  by  the  biennial 
convention  in  May.  Emphasis  in  the  arbitration  proceed- 
ings that  followed  was  placed  upon  the  second  proposal, 
namely,  that  providing  for  an  unemployment  fund.  Hear- 
ings were  held  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  July  1st 
and  2nd.  At  these  hearings  the  union  presented  a  compre- 
hensive brief  reviewing  the  whole  problem  of  unemployment 
in  the  men's  clothing  industry.  The  union  supported  its 
demand  for  a  fund  by  an  analysis  of  the  rights  of  the  work- 
ers and  of  the  manner  in  which  such  a  fund  would  reduce 
the  volume  of  unemployment. 

1.  Unemployment  is  beyond  the  control  of  the  workers.  It 
is  due  in  large  measure  to  conditions  under  which  the  industry 
is  carried  on.  Its  cost  is  therefore  properly  chargeable  against 
industry  just  as  any  other  element  in  the  cost  of  production. 
The  cost  of  unemployment  compensation  is  comparable  in  kind 
to  such  other  elements  in  costs  as  wages,  maintenance  expense 
for  plant  and  machinery  and  costs  incurred  for  industrial  acci- 
dents. 

2.  The  cost  of  unemployment  must  be  met  from  a  fund, 
established  and  supported  by  the  industry  and  segregated  for 
the  purpose  of  meeting  that  cost  alone.  In  this  way,  only,  can 
the  burden  of  the  cost  be  sufficiently  felt  by  those  who  are  in  a 
position  to  take  steps  to  reduce  it.  It  is  a  cardinal  principle  in 
social  insurance  that  specific  allocation  of  the  responsibility  and 
burden  is  an  indispensable  first  step  in  the  eradication  of  the 
evil. 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     159 

The  argument  of  the  union  was  similar  to  that  made 
by  Mr.  Bevin  of  the  English  dockers  before  the  British 
court  of  inquiry  into  the  wages  and  conditions  of  dock 
labor.  Mr.  Bevin,  in  summarizing  the  case  for  unemploy- 
ment compensation  for  the  dockers,  said:  "  If  it  is  moral 
to  have  maintenance  charges  for  docks  then  it  is  equally 
moral  to  have  maintenance  for  labor."  The  union  also 
argued  that  the  experience  of  the  workmen's  compensation 
laws  had  shown  that  specific  allocation  of  responsibility  for 
accidents  upon  employers  had  already  done  much  to  stimu- 
late the  movement  for  the  prevention  of  accidents  in  indus- 
try. The  union  held  that  an  employment  insurance  fund 
scheme  would  provide  a  similar  financial  incentive  to  the 
employer  to  reduce  unemployment. 

In  its  brief,  the  union  stated  that  the  unemployment  fund 
should  be  based  on  contributions  by  manufacturers  of  a 
specified  sum  per  worker  per  week,  with  provisions  which 
would  penalize  those  employers  who  had  an  excess  amount 
of  unemployment  by  making  them  pay  a  higher  premium. 
In  reply  to  the  argument  that  a  certain  degree  of  unem- 
ployment cannot  be  ehminated  by  action  of  the  industry 
alone,  the  union  pointed  out  that  in  a  competitive  industry 
such  as  the  men's  clothing  industry,  the  cost  resulting  from 
such  unemployment  would  be  shifted  to  the  consumer  like 
any  other  cost  of  production,  and  properly  so.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  employer  who  had  reduced  the  amount  of  unem- 
ployment in  his  shop  by  reason  of  better  planning  and  man- 
agement would  pay  less  to  such  a  fund  and  would  thus 
acquire  a  legitimate  competitive  advantage  o^er  his  fellow 
employers. 

When  the  hearings  were  held  in  Chicago  early  in  July, 
it  was  apparent  that  the  clothing  industry  had  been  hard 
hit  by  the  change  in  the  general  business  situation.  Can- 
cellations of  orders  for  the  fall  manufacturing  season  in 
large  and  increasing  volume  came  from  the  retailers.  There 
were  also  many  other  indications  that  the  country  as  a  whole 
was  drifting  into  a  widespread  industrial  depression.  The 
employers  argued  that  under  such  circumstances  it  was  un- 


160     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

timely  to  consider  any  measures  for  the  relief  of  the  workers. 
The  industry,  they  contended,  found  itself  in  a  very  critical 
position,  the  manufacturers  faced  heavy  losses  as  their  goods 
were  thrown  back  on  their  hands,  and  the  outlook  for  the 
future  was  at  best  unpromising. 

The  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  the  Chicago 
market  delayed  issuing  his  decision  until  the  hearing  and 
arbitration  proceedings  in  the  other  clothing  centers  had 
been  concluded  by  the  middle  of  August,  1920.  In  the 
meantime  the  situation  in  the  clothing  industry  and  in  other 
industries  had  become  worse.  In  his  decision  on  August 
17,  1920,  he  denied  the  request  for  a  wage  increase  asked  for 
by  the  union  because  of  the  depressed  condition  of  the  cloth- 
ing industry.  He  recognized,  however,  the  importance  of 
an  unemployment  fund  to  the  industry  and  to  the  workers 
and  accordingly  made  provisions  for  the  appointment  of  a 
commission,  instructed  to  investigate  and  report  the  facts. 
The  decision  of  the  arbitrator,  Professor  Tufts,  is  in  part 
as  follows: 

"  The  first  question  raised  was  whether  the  present  situation 
justifies  action  by  the  board  under  the  emergency  section.  The 
union  showed  that  changes  were  under  consideration  in  other 
markets,  while  the  manufacturers  claimed  that  no  emergency 
existed  of  the  sort  for  which  the  emergency  section  provides. 

"  The  board  rules  that  the  purpose  of  the  clause  was  to  pro- 
vide a  safety  valve,  and  that  in  construing  the  clause  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  broad  rather  than  a  narrow  or  technical  interpreta- 
tion should  be  used.  In  any  case  of  a  doubt  it  is  better  to 
investigate. 

"  On  the  question  of  whether  readjustment  should  be  made, 
the  union  claimed  that  the  cost  of  living  had  increased  since  the 
award  of  December  22,  1919,  and  it  is  still  increasing  and  seems 
hkely  to  increase  further,  and  that  increases  are  being  given  in 
various  other  industries. 

"  The  manufacturers  urged  that,  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
industry,  prices  should  be  kept  as  low  as  possible,  and  submitted 
information  as  to  present  conditions  in  the  industry.  The 
board  holds  that  conditions  in  the  industry  are  not  such  as  to 
justify  a  change  in  wages  at  the  present  time. 

"  With  regard  to  the  creation  of  a  non-employment  fund,  the 
board  believes  that  the  first  step  in  any  case  is  to  investigate. 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     161 

It  will  therefore  appoint  a  commission  on  which  both  parties 
are  represented,  with  a  chairman  representing  the  impartial 
machinery,  to  investigate  the  subject  and  to  report  as  promptly 
as  is  consistent  with  the  necessary  study." 

The  industrial  depression  which  first  became  apparent  in 
the  clothing  industry  at  the  close  of  the  spring  manufactur- 
ing season  of  1920  became  more  general  and  severe  in  its 
effects  in  the  latter  part  of  that  year.  Activity  in  one  in- 
dustry after  another  was  reduced ;  prices  fell,  and  unemploy- 
ment increased.  For  a  time  the  nominal  wholesale  prices 
for  men's  clothing  remained  for  the  most  part  undisturbed. 
In  November,  1920,  however,  the  so-called  "  price  guarantee 
agreenient "  expired  and  there  was  a  sharp  drop  in  prices. 
Despite  the  great  price  change,  there  was  virtually  no  de- 
mand for  clothing  by  retailers.  Many  of  the  large  manu- 
facturers in  the  Chicago  market  refrained  from  beginning 
manufacturing  operations  for  the  spring  season  until  the 
latter  part  of  December  or  early  January.  Production  in 
other  markets  was  similarly  curtailed.  At  the  same  time 
the  New  York  and  Boston  markets  were  in  a  state  of  lock- 
out which  had  caused  almost  a  complete  cessation  of  manu- 
facturing operations. 

THE  ARBITRATION  OF  MARCH,  1921 

In  the  latter  part  of  February  the  employers  in  the  Chi- 
cago market  formulated  and  presented  demands  to  the  union 
for  changes  in  wages  and  working  conditions  to  apply  to 
all  manufacturers  imder  agreement  in  the  market  and  to 
their  several  contractors.  The  requests  of  the  Chicago 
manufacturers  were  as  follows: 

1.  A  flat  reduction  of  25  per  cent,  in  all  wage  scales,  both 
week  and  piece. 

2.  A  reduction  of  those  piece  work  rates  which  yielded  earn- 
ings substantially  in  excess  of  the  market  norm,  unless  the 
higher  earnings  were  due  to  unusual  efficiency.  The  reduction 
in  rates  asked  for  was  in  addition  to  the  flat  reduction  of  25 
per  cent. 

3.  Adoption  of  a  system  of  "  automatically  enforceable 
standards  of  production  "  for  cutters  and  trimmers.     This  sys- 


162     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

tern,  said  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  amounted 
to  "  a  piece  work  system  under  which  the  worker  would  be  paid 
not  for  the  quantity  of  work  turned  out  during  the  payroll 
week,  but  according  to  the  quantity  turned  out  during  a  speci- 
fied preceding  period." 

A  general  conference  and  preliminary  hearing  was  held 
on  March  5, 1921,  to  consider  the  request  made  by  the  manu- 
facturers. At  this  conference,  the  employers  submitted  cer- 
tain data  showing  average  full  time  weekly  earnings  and 
computed  average  annual  earnings  of  the  more  important 
sections  in  both  the  ready-made  and  tailor-to-the-trade 
branches  of  the  industry;  price  conditions  in  the  clothing 
industry  and  in  the  raw  material  markets;  changes  in  the 
cost  of  living  since  June,  1920,  and  wage  reductions  in  other 
industries,  particularly  the  textile  industries. 

At  the  close  of  this  preliminary  conference,  the  union 
asked  for  the  opportunity  to  make  independent  investiga- 
tion and  to  prepare  its  case  in  light  of  the  data  presented 
by  the  employers.  The  union  stated  that  it  obviously  did 
not  have  access  to  certain  information  available  to  the  manu- 
facturers. It  therefore  asked  specifically  that  representa- 
tive houses  in  the  Chicago  market  supply  figures  showing 
the  manufacturing  costs  and  overhead  expense  in  1920  and 
1921.  It  also  requested  that  the  manufacturers  give  data 
showing  by  months  the  number  of  orders  received  from  Octo- 
ber 1st  to  March  15th  for  the  spring  manufacturing  sea- 
sons, 1918-1920  and  1920-21.  The  information  on  orders 
was  designed  to  throw  light  on  comparative  business  con- 
ditions during  these  three  seasons,  more  especially  to  indi- 
cate the  trend  in  the  industry  and  the  extent  to  which,  if 
any,  the  business  in  the  men's  clothing  industry  in  Chicago 
had  improved  from  the  extremely  depressed  state  of  late 
1920. 

Formal  public  hearings  on  the  request  of  the  manufac- 
turers were  held  on  March  28  and  29,  1921,  in  the  assembly 
hall  of  the  Northwestern  School  of  Commerce.  The  hear- 
ings were  very  largely  attended  and  considerable  space  was 
given  to  the  proceedings  by  the  Chicago  newspapers  as  well 


THE  GREAT  WiVGE  ARBITRATIONS     168 

as  by  trade  journals.  Several  hundred  active  members  of 
the  Chicago  Joint  Board  of  the  Amalgamated  attended  the 
two  all-day  hearings.  Many  manufacturers,  labor  man- 
agers and  other  representative  employers  from  the  Chicago, 
Rochester  and  Baltimore  clothing  markets  were  present. 
Added  interest  was  given  to  the  proceedings  by  the  fact 
that  this  was  the  first  case  brought  by  the  manufacturers 
for  a  wage  reduction  before  the  impartial  arbitration  ma- 
chinery in  any  of  the  large  clothing  markets  of  the  country. 

Considerable  general  interest  was  also  manifested  in  this 
arbitration.  Organized  workers  and  employers  particularly 
were  concerned  with  the  outcome.  Though  the  wage  re- 
duction movement  had  been  set  in  motion  several  months 
before,  the  wage  changes  that  had  become  effective  in  un- 
organized industries  had  been  made  by  employers  without 
any  check  by  an  impartial  tribunal,  while  in  the  case  of 
organized  workers  wage  reductions  had  in  some  cases  been 
accepted  after  negotiations,  or  had  been  followed  by  strikes 
or  lockouts.  The  arbitration  proceedings  in  the  Chicago 
clothing  industry,  affecting  directly  as  it  did  40,000  workers, 
therefore  attracted  much  attention.  It  indicated  an  orderly 
method  for  settling  problems  of  wage  adjustment  in  periods 
of  industrial  stress.  Because  of  the  importance  of  the  case 
and  the  circumstances  under  which  the  proceedings  were 
conducted,  the  decision  was  destined  to  have  a  far-reaching 
effect  upon  arbitration  proceedings  or  wage  negotiations 
in  other  organized  industries,  as  well  as  in  the  clothing  in- 
dustry. 

The  employers  presented  their  case  by  the  submission  of 
a  formal  brief,  many  statistical  exhibits  and  by  oral  argu- 
ment. The  position  taken  by  the  employers  was,  in  brief, 
as  follows: 

1.  For  almost  a  year  the  clothing  industry  has  suffered  from 
acute  depression.  In  the  liquidation  process  that  has  neces- 
sarily resulted,  all  factors  in  the  industry,  except  labor,  have 
shared.  Prices  of  raw  materials  and  manufactured  goods  have 
been  much  reduced.  But  labor  has  failed  to  take  a  reduction 
in  wages. 


164     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

2.  The  volume  of  sales  of  men's  clothing  has  declined  be- 
cause the  prices  of  clothing  are  at  a  higher  level  than  the  prices 
of  other  commodities.  The  only  remedy  for  this  condition  is 
the  immediate  reduction  of  all  costs  so  that  prices  may  be 
lowered  to  the  point  where  they  will  stimulate  sales.  All  items 
of  cost  other  than  direct  labor  costs,  have  already  been  reduced. 
Labor  costs  alone  remain  at  the  level  of  1920. 

8.  This  reduction  in  costs  can  be  accomplished  only  by  a 
substantial  cut  in  wages.  But  such  a  cut  does  not  mean  re- 
duced earnings,  for  it  will  be  followed  by  expanding  business, 
fuller  employment,  and,  consequently,  greater  annual  earnings. 

4.  The  cost  of  living  in  Chicago  it  is  estimated  has  decreased 
from  June,  1920,  to  February,  1921,  by  fully  16  per  cent.  It 
is  likely  to  fall  still  further  in  the  immediate  future.  "  Even 
though  we  should  be  disappointed,"  said  the  brief  of  the  em- 
ployers, **  in  our  hope  of  increasing  earnings  by  the  reduction 
asked  for,  we  should  still  be  within  the  limits  of  justice  if  we 
based  our  requests  on  the  cost  of  living  alone." 

6.  Wages  in  the  clothing  industry  in  Chicago  have  been 
increased  two  hundred  and  fifty-four  per  cent,  since  1915. 
They  have  increased  more  than  has  the  cost  of  living ;  they  have 
increased  more  than  have  average  wages  in  other  organized 
trades.  Moreover,  an  unusually  large  proportion  of  the  work- 
ers in  the  Chicago  clothing  industry  have  no  dependents  or  but 
one  dependent.  The  wages  of  the  workers  in  the  clothing  in- 
dustry can  therefore  easily  stand  a  reduction. 

6.  Wages  in  other  industries  have  been  reduced.  In  some 
cases  the  workers  who  have  already  suffered  a  reduction  were 
organized. 

The  employers'  case,  therefore,  rested  first,  on  the  propo- 
sition that  during  industrial  depressions  labor  should  share 
the  burdens  of  liquidation;  second,  that  there  was  a  "nor- 
mal "  relationship  between  prices  in  one  industry  and  those 
in  another,  and  that  this  balance  must  be  restored  if  normal 
business  conditions  were  to  be  secured;  third,  that  an  in- 
dustry by  reducing  prices  could  divert  for  at  least  an  in- 
definite period  purchasing  power  now  used  in  buying  other 
conmiodities  to  the  purchase  of  the  goods  manufactured  by 
it;  fourth,  that  the  increases  in  wages  in  the  past  had  been 
made  with  reference  to  changes  in  the  cost  of  hving,  and 
the  reductions  asked  for  were  therefore  justified  by  the  re- 
duction in  the  cost  of  living  from  the  '*  peak  "  prices  of 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     165 

1920 ;  and  fifth,  that  there  is  some  general  level  of  wages  in 
this  country  which  must  be  closely  approached  by  all  in- 
dustries. The  clothing  workers'  wages  in  Chicago  are  above 
this  level.  Their  earnings  must  be  reduced  as  they  have 
already  been  in  certain  other  industries. 

In  attempting  to  measure  changes  in  the  cost  of  living 
and  earnings  since  1915,  the  manufacturers  by  inference 
also  contended  that  that  year  represented  the  "  norm  "  or 
standard  from  which  relative  changes  were  to  be  measured, 
though  the  general  market  agreement  had  been  signed  in 
May,  1919,  and  wage  rates,  hours  and  working  conditions 
had  been  fixed  by  direct  negotiation  between  the  union  and 
employers  at  that  time  and  had  been  modified  since  only  by 
action  of  the  impartial  arbitration  machinery. 

The  employers  submitted  in  support  of  their  general  argu- 
ment a  large  number  of  statistical  exhibits.  Among  the 
more  important  of  these  exhibits  were: 

1.  Tables  showing  average  weekly  earnings  (four  best  con- 
secutive weeks  in  1920  under  existing  piece  work  and  week  work 
rates)  in  the  coat,  trouser  and  vest  shops,  by  operations,  and 
for  both  the  ready-made  and  special  order  houses. 

2.  Charts  showing  variations  in  total  payroll  by  weeks  for 
coats,  trousers  and  vest  shops,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating 
average  amount  of  employment  throughout  the  year  and  thus 
average  annual  earnings. 

3.  Reports  of  unit  volume  of  business  booked  for  the  spring 
manufacturing  seasons  1919,  1920  and  1921,  for  individual 
representative  houses. 

4.  Reports  of  manufacturing  and  other  costs  for  both  ready- 
made  and  special  order  houses. 

5.  Average  prices  in  1921  and  1920;  and  concentration  of 
spring  business  for  1921  as  compared  with  1920  on  various 
priced  models. 

6.  Volume  of  cancellation  of  spring  orders  1919,  1920  and 
1921. 

7.  Unit  volume  of  returned  goods  in  the  fall  of  1921  as 
compared  with  1918  and  1919. 

8.  Changes  in  the  cost  of  living  compared  to  increase  in 
earnings  for  all  workers  in  a  single  large  wholesale  clothing 
firm  January,  1915,  to  January,  1920  (suggested  as  represen- 
tative of  increase  in  average  earnings  for  the  market  in  this 
period) . 


166      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

In  their  argument  the  employers  had  put  particular  em- 
phasis upon  the  necessity  of  labor's  sharing  the  burdens  of 
liquidation  in  a  period  of  industrial  depression  and  the  need 
for  making  further  reduction  in  cost  so  that  prices  to  the 
consumer  would  be  lowered  and  buying  stimulated.  Only 
by  the  acceptance  of  this  theory  of  wage  liquidation  could 
the  employers  justify  the  drastic  wage  reductions  which  they 
requested  the  Board  of  Arbitration  to  make.  On  its  part 
the  union  contended  that  the  granting  of  the  requests  of  the 
manufacturers  would  only  result  in  a  serious  impairment 
of  the  workers'  standard  of  living  and  therefore  was  wholly 
unwarranted.  The  union  spokesmen,  therefore,  in  their  oral 
arguments  and  in  the  written  briefs  submitted  to  the  Board 
addressed  themselves  not  alone  to  the  questions  of  changes 
in  living  costs,  wage  reductions  in  other  industries,  relative 
wages  and  the  trend  of  business  conditions  in  the  men's 
clothing  industry,  but  also  to  the  economic  theory  of  wage 
liquidation  advanced  by  the  employers.  The  brief  prepared 
by  the  research  department  of  the  union  dealt  in  a  series  of 
separate  memoranda  with  the  following  aspects  of  the 
case: 

Wages  in  the  men's  clothing  industry  in  Chicago. 

Wages  and  cost  of  living. 

Cost  of  living  in  Chicago. 

The  extent  of  wage  reductions. 

Wage  reduction  in  the  textile  and  oil  industries. 

Relation  between  cost  and  wages  in  the  Chicago  clothing 
industry. 

Business  conditions. 

The  economic  theory  of  wage  liquidation. 

Labor's  share  in  liquidation. 

The  union  was  represented  by  President  Sidney  Hillman, 
Manager  Samuel  Levin,  General  Executive  Board  mem- 
bers A.  D.  Marimpietri  and  Samuel  Rissman,  and  Dr.  Leo 
Wolman  in  the  oral  arguments  at  the  public  hearings.  By 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  the  arguments  of  the  union 
spokesmen  were  directed  in  large  measure  toward  a  refuta- 
tion of  the  position  advanced  by  the  employers.  However, 
at  the  very  outset  the  union  directed  attention  to  the  present 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     16T 

status  of  the  workers  in  the  Chicago  clothing  market  as 
organized  workers. 

The  union  laid  stress  on  the  importance  of  the  fact  that 
the  clothing  workers  of  Chicago  were  now  organized  into  a 
strong  trade  union.  This,  the  union  said,  was  fundamental 
to  an  understanding  of  the  case  and  a  pix^per  decision  by 
the  Board  of  Arbitration.  The  workers  haci  organized  for 
the  express  purpose  of  protecting  the  standards  which  they 
had  since  secured  through  organization  and  for  steadily  rais- 
ing their  standards  of  well-being.  Throughout  the  argu- 
ment of  the  employers  this  outstanding  fact  of  the  situation 
had  been  overlooked.  The  union  as  a  labor  organization 
could  not  accept  a  theory  of  wage  liquidation  during  indus- 
trial depressions  which  would  wipe  out  gains  made  during 
more  prosperous  times  and  tend  to  undermine  standards 
attained  by  negotiation  and  agreement. 

Neither  would  the  union  consider  that  reductions  in  wage 
rates  suffered  by  unorganized  workers  be  taken  as  a  guide 
in  the  determination  of  the  wages  of  organized  workers. 
Such  wage  reductions,  wherever  accepted  by  the  workers, 
indicated  only  the  superior  strength  of  the  employers  with- 
out regard  to  the  fairness  or  the  necessity  for  the  lower  wage 
standards.  In  fact,  the  union  showed  that  in  two  important 
industries,  in  which  the  employers  said  in  their  brief  the 
most  drastic  wage  reductions  had  made,  profits  and  divi- 
dends paid  had  been  extraordinarily  large  for  the  year  1920. 
It  was  obvious  that  in  these  cases  there  was  no  justification 
for  the  wage  reductions  made  by  the  employers. 

The  union  considered  first  the  principal  contention  of  the 
employers — namely,  that  the  Chicago  clothing  industry  was 
in  a  condition  of  acute  depression  and  that  recovery  could 
only  come  after  a  drastic  wage  reduction  and  lowered  labor 
costs  had  made  possible  lower  prices.  In  reply  the  union 
contended : 

First,  that  prices  could  be  reduced  without  a  reduction  in 
wages.  In  the  past,  said  the  union,  there  has  been  no  close 
relationship  between  changes  in  wages  and  changes  in  prices. 
During  the  boom  period  of  1919  and  early  1920  it  is  a  well- 


168      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

known  fact  that  prices  of  men's  clothing  (and  of  other  com- 
modities) were  determined  not  by  any  relation  between 
wages  and  prices  but  solely  by  what  the  traffic  would  bear. 
Second,  that  the  cost  data  presented  by  the  employers 
show  that  labor  cost  does  not  constitute  the  all-controlling 
element  in  the  cost  of  making  clothes.  The  information  on 
costs  furthermore  shows  that  there  are  diversities  in  labor 
costs  and  in  the  other  elements  of  cost  reported  by  different 
manufacturers.  In  certain  houses  overhead  expense  is  the 
largest  item.  In  other  instances  cost  of  raw  material,  wool- 
ens and  trimmings,  represents  a  greater  proportion  of  total 
cost  than  does  any  other  element.  The  cost  figures  show  that 
the  wage  reductions  demanded  by  the  manufacturers  even 
if  made  would  have  little  effect  on  the  total  production  cost 
of  making  clothes  and  a  still  smaller  and  more  remote  effect 
upon  the  final  price  of  clothing  paid  by  the  consumer. 

Third,  that  before  reducing  labor  costs  as  requested  by 
the  employers  the  Board  should  inquire  into  the  fairness  of 
the  present  level  of  labor  costs. 

"  The  employers,"  said  President  Hillman,  "  have  asked  for  a 
reduction  in  labor  costs  without  defining  what  a  proper  labor 
cost  is.  They  have  simply  said  they  are  excessive.  The  union 
submits  that  the  Board  must  take  into  account,  in  determining 
a  fair  standard  of  labor  costs,  whether  labor  costs  have  in- 
creased disproportionately  to  total  cost;  what  steps  had  been 
taken  by  the  union  to  reduce  costs  through  increased  efficiency, 
and  finally,  the  primary  obligation  of  the  industry  to  assure  to 
its  workers  a  decent  standard  of  living.  The  figures  will  show 
that  though  earnings  have  increased,  labor  costs  have  not  in- 
creased disproportionately  to  total  costs ;  that  the  union  has 
made  contributions  to  the  efficiency  of  the  market  and  that 
though  workers'  standards  had  risen  they  were  not  excessive 
and  that  they  did  not  place  an  unfair  burden  on  the  consumers 
of  men's  clothing." 

The  union  cited  in  this  connection  the  cost  figures  and 
data  showing  change  from  week  work  to  piece  work  in  the 
market,  which  had  been  submitted  by  the  manufacturers. 
The  cost  figures  showed  that  for  ten  of  fourteen  houses  labor 
cost  was  less  than  thirty  per  cent,  of  total  cost.    Labor  cost 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     169 

to-day,  March,  1921,  does  not  constitute  a  larger  proportion 
of  the  total  costs,  even  after  there  have  been  reductions  in 
other  items  of  cost  as  the  employers  have  stated,  than  did 
labor  cost  in  1915.  Labor  cost  to-day,  therefore,  is  clearly 
not  excessive. 

For  this  result  the  union  showed  it  was  in  a  large  measure 
responsible.  *'  In  the  period  since  the  agreement  was  signed 
in  May,  1919,  labor  cost,"  said  the  union's  brief,  "  has  been 
reduced  mainly  through  the  energetic  co-operation  of  the 
union.  On  the  basis  of  calculations  made  by  the  union,  it 
has  been  found  that  the  reduction  in  labor  costs  brought 
about  by  the  co-operation  of  the  union  has  been,  in  the  period 
from  May,  1919,  to  date  (March,  1921),  fully  as  great  as 
ten  per  cent,  with  respect  to  the  savings  due  to  changes  from 
week  work  to  piece  work  alone. 

It  is  pertinent  to  quote  at  this  point  the  statement  of 
A.  D.  Marimpietri  made  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration: 

"  The  union  has  always  helped  and  in  many  cases  volunteered 
suggestions  for  the  elimination  of  unnecessary  costs  in  the  pro- 
cess of  manufacturing.  To-day  it  can  be  safely  said  that  the 
industry  is  running,  so  far  as  the  manufacturing  part  is  con- 
cerned, more  efficiently  than  ever  before.  It  can  be  asserted 
without  fear  of  contradiction  that  this  market  exceeds  all 
others  in  the  matter  of  manufacturing  efficiency. 

"  To  secure  the  good-will  of  the  workers,  it  has  taken  con- 
siderable patience  and  effort  on  our  part,  and  with  the  help 
of  the  impartial  machinery  we  have  been  quite  successful.  I 
want  to  emphasize  the  weight  that  we  give  to  the  good-will  of 
the  workers  because  I  know  that  without  it  my  best  intentions 
and  that  of  my  colleagues  would  be  of  very  little  value. 

"  A  still  further  reduction  would  to  my  honest  conviction 
seriously  affect  the  good-will  of  the  workers  toward  the  em- 
ployers, the  agreement,  and  the  impartial  machinery  to  which 
they  have  been  and  are  being  educated  to  look  for  protection 
and  justice. 

"  A  still  further  reduction  would  in  the  long  run  prove 
ominous  to  the  industry,  because  it  would  impair  the  efficiency 
of  the  workers. 

"  Let  me  explain  the  meaning  of  the  last  statement :  since  the 
signing  of  the  general  agreement  in  this  market  a  stupendous 
amount  of  energy  was  released  from  our  piece  workers,  energy 


170      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

that  was  kept  in  reserve  for  fear  of  rate  reductions,  a  fear 
amply  justified  by  the  past  custom  in  our  industry. 

"  Piece  work  rates  were  instituted  by  foremen  or  other  execu- 
tives and  I  do  not  intend  to  criticize  the  way  the  rates  were 
arrived  at,  but  I  want  to  say  that  although  these  rates  were 
generally  low,  it  happened  sometimes  that  a  particular  worker 
or  a  particular  section  would  earn  a  little  more  money,  with 
the  consequence  that  the  rate  was  immediately  reduced.  Cases 
of  this  kind  were  quite  frequent  and  so  the  workers  learned  of 
it  and  most  naturally  applied  their  own  remedy  for  correction, 
which  was  the  refusal  to  give  extra  energy  for  no  extra  com- 
pensation. I  shall  tell  my  own  experience  in  the  matter,  and 
I  do  not  fear  being  accused  of  any  wrong-doing,  because  I 
firmly  believe  I  was  entirely  justified  and  I  would  do  it  in  the 
future  again  under  the  same  circumstances. 

"  I  was  given  certain  piece  work  rates  by  the  foreman  of  the 
shop  where  I  worked.  As  a  whole  the  rates  were  quite  satis- 
factory; by  working  hard  I  was  able  to  earn  a  fair  wage  for 
that  time,  but  I  knew  how  far  I  could  go,  because  I  had  seen 
and  heard  of  rates  being  reduced  for  the  only  reason  that  the 
pay  envelope  looked  too  big  to  the  employer  or  to  the  foreman. 
The  fact  that  one  worker  was  doing  the  work  previously  done 
by  three,  as  in  my  case,  was  of  no  consideration  whatever.  Be- 
ing the  only  one  on  that  particular  job  I  was  in  a  somewhat 
peculiar  position.  If  I  worked  extra  hard  I  could  manage  to 
take  care  of  it;  if  I  refused  to  speed  another  worker  would  be 
added  and  then  there  would  never  be  work  for  both  of  us.  I 
decided  to  work  extra  hard  and  at  the  same  time  turn  in  tickets 
for  only  weekly  amounts  which  I  knew,  or  I  thought  I  knew, 
was  the  maximum  allowed,  and  keep  the  rest  for  a  slack  period 
if  that  period  was  near  or  destroy  them  if  need  be  rather  than 
submit  to  a  reduction  of  rates.  This  lasted  for  quite  a  while, 
until  more  of  that  kind  came  in  the  shop  and  a  new  worker, 
just  arrived  from  Europe,  was  put  beside  me.  He  worked  as 
hard  as  he  could,  turned  in  all  his  tickets  at  the  end  of  the  week 
and  the  next  thing  I  knew,  a  reduction  of  33  per  cent,  in  the 
rate  had  taken  place. 

"  Under  the  agreement,  such  a  sj'stem  has  disappeared,  hence 
the  releasing  of  the  energy  of  which  I  am  speaking. 

"  That  our  workers  are  more  efficient  since  the  agreement 
cannot  be  justly  denied,  and  if  they  are  earning  at  present  when 
at  work  a  living  wage,  it  is  due  chiefly  to  their  increased  effi- 
ciency, as  a  result  partly  of  close  co-operation  between  the 
employer  and  the  union  and  partly  of  the  introduction  of  l^.bor 
saving  machines." 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     171 

Moreover,  said  the  union,  earnings  at  present  wage  rates 
do  not  yield  to  the  worker  and  his  dependents  a  standard 
of  living  which  is  excessive  and  a  burden  to  the  industry  or 
to  the  consumer  of  clothing.  To  determine  the  weekly 
earnings  of  a  clothing  worker  the  annual  earnings  should 
be  averaged  over  the  fifty-two  weeks  of  the  year.  The 
clothing  worker  is  obliged  to  spread  his  earnings  over  the 
fifty-two  weeks  of  the  year,  although  he  is  actually  employed 
for  a  considerably  fewer  number  of  weeks.  If  the  necessary 
allowance  be  made  for  unemployment  and  earnings  pare 
spread  over  the  whole  year,  the  actual  weekly  income  of  a 
workingman  is  seen,  in  the  following  table,  not  to  be  ex- 
cessive : 

AVERAGE   WEEKLY  WAGES   OF   CLOTHING  WORKERS. 

CHICAGO,  1920. 

(1  Year =52  Weeks.) 

\  ■  •      .  ,  ,  ,  ,        '     ■  ■  - 

Ready  Made.  Special  Order. 


Men.      Women.  Men.     Women. 


Week  Workers. 

Coats     $31.00     $20.00  $28.00  $19.00 

Pants     24.00       16.00  29.00  19.50 

Vests   29.00       19.00  33.00  22.70 

Piece  Workers. 

Coats     $39.60     $28.30  $36.90  $25.30 

Pants     38.20       25.00  35.30  27.80 

Vests   38.20       23.40  36.80  26.90 

"  On  no  level  of  prices,"  said  the  union's  brief,  "  can 
those  wages  be  said  to  be  more  than  adequate."  No  reduc- 
tion of  labor  costs  at  the  expense  of  wages  can  be  justified 
if  the  industry's  obligation  to  support  its  workers  is  recog- 
nized as  a  primary  one. 

Fourth,  that  wage  reductions  cannot  be  justified  on  the 
ground  that  all  interests  other  than  wage-earners  had  taken 
losses  in  the  process  of  liquidation  and  that  labor  should  take 


172     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

its  share  by  accepting  a  wage  cut.  The  union  did  not  deny 
that  many  manufacturers  had  suffered  losses  during  the 
period  of  liquidation  which  followed  the  decline  of  business 
in  1920.  The  union  maintained,  however,  that  "  while 
there  is  no  fair  comparison  between  the  nature  and 
extent  of  liquidation  experienced  by  workingmen  and  by 
business  men,  the  employers'  figures  show  that  in  the  last 
six  months  of  1920  workers  in  the  clothing  industry  in 
Chicago  suffered  serious  and  continuous  unemployment. 
This  unemployment  carried  with  it  enormous  reductions 
in  earnings.  Furthermore,  earnings  of  workers  had  been 
also  reduced  by  changes  in  the  quahty  of  work  de- 
manded of  them."  Yet  the  manufacturers  were  now  de- 
manding virtually  that  workers  share  their  losses  of  liqui- 
dation, though  when  business  was  booming,  prices  high  and 
profit  margins  large,  the  employers  had  not  asked  the 
workers  to  share  in  the  profits.  "  In  every  respect  the  con- 
dition in  the  last  six  months  of  1920  and  early  1921  was  one 
of  real  liquidation  so  far  as  the  workers  in  the  clothing  in- 
dustry were  concerned.  Man  for  man,  the  economic  sacri- 
fice experienced  was  fully  as  great  as  that  experienced  by 
any  manufacturer  or  any  other  agent  of  industry  in  the 
clothing  industry.  The  whole  process  of  liquidation  has 
meant  for  the  worker  a  definite  set-back  in  the  standard  of 
living." 

Fifth,  that  an  analysis  of  the  factors  operating  in  a  depres- 
sion would  show  that  even  if  the  wage  reductions  asked  for 
by  the  manufacturers  were  made  they  would  not  bring  the 
stimulation  of  sales  and  increased  volume  of  employment 
that  they  had  hoped  for  when  they  had  presented  their 
case.  The  union  pointed  out  that  general  price  reductions 
in  a  period  of  industrial  depression  do  not  bring  an  increase 
in  the  volimie  of  business.  On  the  contrary,  a  stable  price 
level  is  essential  to  the  stimulation  of  sales.  Buyers  hold 
off  when  they  believe  prices  will  go  still  lower  and  begin  to 
buy  once  they  are  assured  that  prices  are  fair  and  stable, 
provided  the  purchasing  power  of  the  consumer  has  not  been 
impaired  because  of  wage  cuts  or  unemployment,  and  finally. 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     173 

that  the  acute  depressed  condition  in  which  the  clothing  in- 
dustry found  itself  at  the  beginning  of  the  spring  manu- 
facturing season  of  1920-21  and  upon  which  condition  the 
manufacturers  had  based  their  case,  had,  in  large  measure, 
passed. 

As  the  spring  manufacturing  season  of  1920-21  advanced, 
there  was  a  marked  increase  in  the  number  of  orders  received 
by  Chicago  clothing  manufacturers.  This  fact  was  re- 
vealed, the  union  pointed  out,  in  the  figures  for  the  number  of 
orders  received  which  were  submitted  by  the  manuf actm*ers 
to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  at  the  request  of  the  union. 
This  increase  in  business  had  already  reflected  itself  in  the 
volume  of  employment  enjoyed  by  the  clothing  workers  in 
Chicago  and  in  other  clothing  centers.  "  Already  only  one 
month  after  the  employers'  brief  was  submitted,"  said  the 
statement  of  the  union,  "  clothing  markets  report  a  short- 
age of  workers  and  advertisements  in  newspapers  for  addi- 
tional workers  are  to  be  found." 

The  brief  of  the  union  also  directed  attention  to  the  re- 
ports in  trade  papers  of  the  withdrawal  of  offerings  of 
woolen  lines  for  the  fall,  1921 ;  the  improvement  in  the  Fed- 
eral Reserve  Banks'  reserve  ratio  and  the  consequent  eas- 
ing of  the  credit  situation;  the  resumption  of  activity  in  the 
building  industry;  the  favorable  reports  made  by  depart- 
ment stores  to  the  Federal  Reserve  Board  on  the  volume  of 
trade  in  January  and  February;  and  the  increase  of  activity 
in  certain  industries,  particularly  those  dealing  with  such 
goods  as  boots  and  shoes,  textiles  and  wearing  apparel,  as 
constructive  factors  in  the  general  business  situation.  The 
union  held  that  the  men's  clothing  industry  had  in  fact  made 
a  distinct  recovery  from  the  depressed  condition  of  1920  and 
that  an  improvement  in  the  general  situation  would  still 
further  aid  in  expanding  the  volume  of  business  in  the  in- 
dustry. Recovery  had  then  in  part  set  in,  although  there 
had  been  no  change  in  the  wage  level. 

The  employers  had  laid  much  stress  on  the  decrease  in 
the  cost  of  living  which  occurred  between  June,  1920,  and 
December,  1920,  in  their  argument  for  a  reduction.     The 


174      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

union  challenged  the  conclusions  of  the  employers  on  a  num- 
ber of  grounds.  In  the  first  place  the  union  pointed  out 
that  wage  adjustments  since  1917  had  not  been  on  the  basis 
of  changes  in  the  cost  of  living.  They  were  due  to  the  ef- 
forts of  the  union  to  raise  the  workers'  standard  of  living 
and  the  wage  reduction  asked  for  by  manufacturers  if 
granted  would  reduce  the  standards  reached  by  agreement. 
In  fact,  in  the  case  of  many  of  the  increases  granted  the 
lower  paid  sections  were  given  a  relatively  higher  increase 
than  the  better  paid  sections  so  as  to  raise  the  standard  of 
the  more  poorly  paid  workers. 

Mr.  Samuel  Levin,  Manager  of  the  Chicago  Joint  Board, 
discussed  at  the  public  hearing  the  effect  of  a  horizontal 
wage  cut  on  the  Chicago  market.  "  In  practically  all  of 
the  adjustments,"  said  Mr.  Levin,  "  in  wage  rates  made  in 
the  market,  workers  in  the  more  highly  paid  sections  have 
been  given  smaller  increases  relatively  than  have  been  given 
workers  employed  on  the  more  poorly  paid  operations.  It 
has  been  the  union  policy  to  use  the  official  increases  granted 
to  it  to  raise  the  standards  of  the  more  poorly  paid  workers. 
A  wage  reduction  would  first  reduce  the  standards  of  the 
low  paid  workers  whose  level  of  well-being  the  union  has 
been  able  to  raise  only  after  considerable  effort.  It  would 
also  result  in  reducing  the  standards  of  the  more  highly  paid 
workers  whose  wages  were  never  advanced  as  rapidly  as  the 
cost  of  living.  The  reduction  of  these  workers  cannot  be 
justified  upon  any  slight  reduction  in  the  cost  of  living 
index." 

In  the  second  place,  the  union  held  that  the  employers  had 
attempted  to  measure  changes  in  living  cost  from  June, 
1920.  June,  1920,  was  not  a  proper  base.  The  workers  had 
been  given  no  increase  in  1920  to  compensate  them  for  the 
rise  from  December,  1919,  to  June,  1920.  It  was  the  union's 
contention  that  change  in  living  cost  should  be  measured, 
if  at  all,  from  December,  1919,  to  March,  1921. 

In  the  third  place,  the  union  challenged  the  accuracy  of 
the  figures  of  the  employers  for  measuring  changes  in  living 
costs.     On  the  basis  of  a  new  series  of  index   numbers 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     175 

constructed  by  the  union  which  differed  from  those  of  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  by  giving  a  new 
and  proper  weight  to  rents,  the  union  showed  that  there  had 
been  only  a  slight  change  downward  in  the  cost  of  living  from 
December,  1919,  when  the  last  change  in  wage  rates  had  been 
made  in  the  Chicago  market.  On  the  basis  of  this  index  the 
estimated  decrease  in  the  cost  of  living  from  December, 
1919,  to  May,  1921,  was  from  three  to  five  per  cent.  Fur- 
thermore, it  was  the  union's  contention  that  there  was  a 
probability  of  an  increase  in  prices,  particularly  of  food, 
rather  than  a  further  decrease. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  union,  while  admitting  that  when 
the  changes  are  very  great,  the  index  number  of  the  cost  of 
living  is  a  legitimate  index ;  it  at  the  same  time  directed  atten- 
tion to  the  difficulties  inherent  in  changing  wages  whenever 
there  is  only  a  slight  change  in  the  cost  of  living  index.  The 
union  said: 

•*  Finally  the  union  urges  the  necessity  for  great  caution  in 
making  any  wage  adjustments  whatsoever  on  the  basis  of  only 
slight  changes  in  an  index  number  of  the  cost  of  living.  A 
wage  reduction  is  after  all  a  very  real  and  personal  thing.  It 
has  to  be  explained  to  large  masses  of  people,  each  of  whom 
has  his  own  personal  experience  with  regard  to  both  income 
and  expenditures.  It  is  a  debatable  question  whether  any 
adjustment  in  wages  downward  is  justified  in  a  highly  organ- 
ized industry  when  there  may  exist  considerable  difference  of 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  validity  of  the  various  measures  of 
changes  in  the  cost  of  living." 

The  employers  had  contended  that  the  earnings  of  the 
workers  in  the  Chicago  clothing  industry  had  increased, 
according  to  the  figures  of  the  manufacturers,  254  per  cent, 
since  1915.  This  increase,  they  said,  in  the  earnings  of  the 
clothingi  workers  was  gi'cater  than  the  increase  in  living  costs 
and  more  than  earnings  of  workers  had  increased  in  other 
industries.  To  cut  wages  in  the  clothing  industry  would 
not  reduce  standards  below  a  proper  level. 

The  representatives  of  the  Amalgamated  pointed  out, 
however,  that  the  demand  of  the  manufacturers  was  for  a 
reduction  of  wage  rates,  and  that  even  if  the  figures  of  the 


176     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

manufacturers  were  correct  and  typical  of  the  market  as  a 
whole  they  were  not  pertinent  to  the  question  before  the 
Board  of  Arbitration.  Changes  in  earnings,  the  union  said, 
are  due  only  in  part  to  wage  increases.  Earnings  of 
workers  in  the  Chicago  market  have  been  affected  by  in- 
creases in  output  and  efficiency.  To  reduce  wages  because 
earnings  were  high  would  penalize  the  worker  for  his  greater 
contribution  and  would  amount  to  adopting  "  the  bad  prin- 
ciple that  all  gains  resulting  from  improvement  in  efficiency 
should  go  to  the  employer." 

Even  if  earnings  or  wage  rates  had  increased  more  than 
had  the  cost  of  living  or  than  had  wages  in  other  organized 
industries  since  1915,  they  were  not  a  proper  basis  for  the 
granting  of  a  wage  cut.  The  employers  had  selected  1915 
as  a  starting  point  from  which  to  measure  relative  changes 
in  living  costs  and  earnings  of  clothing  workers  in  Chicago. 
"Why,"  said  the  union,  "  select  1915  as  a  base?  There  is 
no  agreement  by  the  union  that  earnings  in  1915  yielded 
the  workers  a  proper  standardt  of  living,  even  at  1915  prices. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  earnings  of  clothing  workers  in  1915 
were  notoriously  low  and  only  by  raising  wages,  through 
organization,  faster  than  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  living, 
could  the  clothing  worker  attain  a  proper  standard  or  reach 
the  level  already  reached  by  other  organized  workers."  The 
union,  therefore,  objected  to  the  comparison  of  relative 
changes  in  wage  rates  or  earnings  with  the  cost  of  living, 
unless  a  proper  base  was  selected  from  which  to  measure 
such  changes. 

But  the  union  did  not  content  itself  with  a  discussion  of 
the  principles  involved  in  the  use  of  a  comparison  between 
wages  and  cost  of  living.  It  showed  that  official  wage  in- 
creases in  the  Chicago  market  had  in  fact  lagged  behind  the 
increase  in  the  cost  of  living.  Earnings,  no  doubt,  had  risen 
at  a  higher  rate  than  shown  by  a  compilation  of  official  wage 
adjustments.  But  these  higher  earnings,  as  had  been  shown, 
resulted  in  part  from  other  causes  than  general  market  wage 
adjustments. 

After  the  public  hearings  the  union  questioned  the  power 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     177 

of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  acting  under  the  specific  pro- 
visions of  the  Chicago  agreement,  to  change  wages  unless 
there  had  been  "  a  general  change  in  wages  in  the  clothing  in- 
dustry." No  such  general  wage  change,  it  submitted,  had 
taken  place.  This  challenge  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Board 
the  union  did  not  present  until  after  the  public  hearings  had 
been  held.  It  did  not  submit  its  objections  on  this  matter 
sooner  because  it  wished  to  afford  an  opportunity  to  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  to  fully  investigate  the  claim  of  the 
manufacturers  that  an  emergency  within  the  specific  mean- 
ing of  the  agreement  actually  existed. 

DECISION  OF  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  BOARD  OF 
ARBITRATION 

The  question  raised  by  the  union  as  to  the  power  of  the 
Board  to  make  an  award  had,  of  course,  to  be  disposed  of 
first.  After  reviewing  the  use  of  the  emergency  clause  in 
previous  hearings,  the  chairman  held  that  Professor  Tufts 
when  chairman,  in  making  his  decision  on  the  arbitration 
proceedings  of  July  and  August,  1919,  had  ruled  "  that  the 
purpose  of  the  clause  was  to  provide  flexibility  and  a  safety 
valve;  and  in  construing  the  clause,  the  principle  of  broad, 
rather  than  of  narrow  or  technical  interpretation  should  be 
used."  At  the  time  Professor  Millis  was  making  his  de- 
cision the  lock-out  was  still  in  effect  in  the  New  York  mar- 
ket. He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  if  a  strict  inter- 
pretation was  given  to  the  wording  of  the  agreement  that  it 
would  be  "  necessary  for  the  workers  and  manufacturers  in 
Chicago,  now  the  largest  market,  to  wait  until  something 
had  been  done  in  one  or  more  of  the  other  markets,  before 
the  Arbitration  Board  could  decide  a  question  of  wages  at 
issue.  The  chairman,  quite  independently  of  the  case  in 
hand,  feels  that  such  procedure  would  be  unfortunate." 

Professor  Millis|  therefore  ruled  that  the  Board  had  power 
under  the  terms  of  the  agreement  to  render  a  decision  at  that 
time  on  the  question  of  wages  in  the  Chicago  market. 

As  a  basis  for  the  decision  on  the  wage  cuts  requested  by 
the  manufacturers.  Professor  H.  A.  Millis,  chairman  of  the 


178      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Board  of  Arbitration,  analyzed  the  data  which  had  been  sub- 
mitted by  both  sides.  The  Chairman  first  discussed  the  re- 
lation between  earnings  and  wages  in  the  Chicago  market 
to  determine  whether  the  standards  of  the  clothing  worker 
were  in  fact  excessive.  "  Data  drawn  from  typical  houses 
by  the  representatives  of  the  manufacturers  and  submitted 
to  the  Board  show  for  very  good  or  the  best  successive  four 
weeks  (in  each  house)  average  earnings  for  a  44-hour  week 
as  follows: 

Men.  Women. 


Piece        Week  Piece         Week 

Work.      Work.  Work.       Work. 


Coat  Shops $51.75  $40.59  $36.28  $27.52 

PanU  Shops 52.20  37.65  37.44  26.57 

Vest  Shops 51.19  41.57  32.63  29.57 

Average     $51.79  $40.30  $36.13  $27.48 


Average  for  all  workers  (based  upon  11,500).  .$48.44         $84.31 

"  These  averages  of  course,  show  earning  power  with  full  and 
uninterrupted  employment  for  44  hours  per  week  and  with  ap- 
proximately 71  per  cent,  of  the  men  and  79  per  cent,  of  the 
women  on  piece  work  and  applying  themselves  intently  and 
working  rapidly  as  piece  workers  do.  They  are  averages  only 
and  behind  them,  as  would  be  expected,  are  great  diversities  of 
earnings  by  occupations — the  extremes  for  men  in  the  ready- 
made  coat  shops,  for  example,  being  $55.04  for  sleeve  sewers 
and  $24.50  for  finishers  on  week  work,  and  $59.09  for  edge 
pressers  and  $30.20  for  a  finisher  on  piece  work;  for  women, 
$41.25  for  button  hole  makers  and  $18.31  for  basting  pullers  on 
week  work,  and  $52.94  for  sleeve  sewers  and  $23.62  for  basting 
pullers  on  piece  work.  Moreover,  the  averages  presented  are 
drawn  from  the  tailor  shops  only;  cutting  rooms,  spongers, 
machinists  and  other,  these  aggregating  an  eighth  or  a  seventh 
of  the  workers  employed,  are  omitted  from  consideration.  With 
minor  expectations,  these  mentioned  are  week  workers,  but 
taken  as  a  group  they  have  wages  averaging  about  the  same  as 
those  of  their  fellow  week  workers  in  the  tailor  shops." 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     179 

Comparing  these  data  and  making  allowance  for  the 
higher  earnings  for  piece  workers,  the  chairman  concluded 
that  the  standards  of  the  clothing  worker  set  by  agreement 
in  1919  "  cannot  be  said  to  be  exorbitant  and  could  not  be 
regarded  as  having  placed  a  tax  or  improper  burden  upon 
those  served  by  the  clothing  industry." 

The  chairman  then  discussed  the  effect  of  a  wage  reduction 
on  the  business  outlook  of  the  clothing  industry.  He  found, 
in  the  first  place,  that  "  from  data  supplied  by  a  large  num- 
ber of  manufacturers  in  a  form  requested  by  the  Board,  it 
appears  that  with  the  changes  in  prices  induced  by  keen 
competition  and  in  costs  of  manufacture  and  sale,  a  large 
part,  if  not  most  of  the  business  is  being  done  at  a  loss." 
On  the  other  hand,  he  called  attention  to  the  fact,  emphasized 
by  the  union,  that  direct  labor  cost  in  a  large  majority  of 
houses  reporting  is  less  than  thirty  per  cent,  of  the  total  cost 
of  manufacture. 

The  employers  had  contended  in  their  argument  that  a 
drastic  wage  cut  would  so  stimulate  business  and  afford  a 
larger  measure  of  employment  that  despite  lower  wage  rates, 
earnings  of  the  workers  would  be  increased.  With  this  con- 
tention of  the  employers  the  chairman  held  that  he  could  not 
agree.  "  Of  course,  a  reduction  in  wage  rates  would  be  fol- 
lowed by  some  increase  in  buying,  if  we  may  assume  that 
any  saving  in  labor  cost  will  be  passed  on  to  the  consumer. 
There  is,  however,  no  substantial  reason  to  believe  that  a 
reduction  of  twenty-five  per  cent.,  as  requested,  would  so 
favorably  affect  business  that  earnings  would  be  maintained 
or  increased  because  of  the  increased  amount  of  work." 

Revival  in  the  clothing  industry,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
chairman,  was  dependent  upon  revival  in  industry  generally. 
"  The  fact  is,"  said  the  chairman  in  his  decision,  "  that  the 
volume  of  business  and  the  amount  of  work  in  the  coming 
months  will  depend  more  upon  what  happens  outside  the 
clothing  industry  than  upon  what  happens  within  it.  If 
general  business  conditions  improve  materially,  as  many 
think  they  will  and  as  there  is  much  reason  to  think  will  be 
the  case,  there  will  be  a  good  demand  for  clothing,  for  peo- 


180     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

pie  will  in  that  event  have  money  to  spend  and  will  be  of 
an  optimistic  frame  of  mind.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
is  widespread  unemployment  and  reduced  earnings  in  other 
industries,  a  great  reduction  in  the  cost  of  producing  cloth- 
ing would  not  make  the  clothing  industry  normal  or  any- 
where near  normal.  In  other  words,  there  is  much  in  the 
situation  entirely  beyond  the  control  of  the  clothing  industry. 
In  fact,  the  clothing  industry  is  a  very  dependent  one ;  very 
dependent  upon  the  ups  and  downs  in  the  general  business 
situation." 

Coming  then  to  the  effect  of  a  price  change  resulting  from 
a  wage  reduction  the  chairman  said:  "  Certainty  as  to  costs 
and  stability  in  the  market  would  be  helpful  regardless  of 
any  change  in  costs  and  prices.  But,  it  must  be  said  that  if 
costs  were  reduced  but  instability  still  continued  because  of 
unusually  keen  competition  for  business  and  price  cutting, 
there  would  still  be  more  or  less  waiting.  Moreover,  what- 
ever may  be  the  merits  of  the  case,  there  is  a  rather  prevalent 
feeling  that  prices  are  too  high  and  that  something  should 
be  done  and  will  be  done  to  bring  them  down  to  that  in- 
definite and  undefined  thing,  a  *  fair  level'."  Nevertheless, 
he  held  that  "  the  psychological  effect  of  a  readjustment  in 
cost,  provided  any  saving  is  not  withheld  from  consumers, 
would  have  a  favorable  effect  on  the  clothing  business." 

He  did  not,  however,  "  share  the  manufacturers'  view  that 
a  drastic  reduction  in  wages  would  so  stimulate  business  as 
to  maintain  or  increase  earnings." 

"  Such  a  drastic  reduction  would  mean  that  the  standards 
of  wages  set  up  by  agreement  would  be  impaired,"  read  the 
decision  of  the  Chairman.  "  The  chairman  is  of  the  opinion 
that  in  the  present  situation  these  standards  should  not  be  im- 
paired because  (a)  they  were  set  up  by  agreement  by  the  parties 
in  interest;  (b)  they  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  exorbitant 
when  tested  by  what  organized  workers  of  a  comparable  type 
received  or  by  the  cost  of  any  socially  acceptable  type  of  hving 
and  therefore  cannot  be  said  to  have  placed  a  tax  or  improper 
burden  upon  those  served  by  the  clothing  industry;  (c)  the 
workers  cannot  well  be  asked  to  accept  losses  which  would  in 
all  probability  accompany  a  drastic  cut  unless  they  are  prom- 
ised a  share  in  profits  when  profits  are  very  good." 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     181 

The  chairman  therefore  held  that  "  any  adjustment  will 
therefore  be  within  the  limits  of  the  reduction  in  the  cost  of 
living  and  will  not  undermine  the  general  standards  set  up 
by  agreement  in  1919." 

The  cost  of  living  had  declined,  making  allowance  for 
changes  in  rent  about  8  or  9  per  cent,  from  December,  1919. 
Many  had  received  then  a  large  increase  in  wages.  On  this 
basis  clothing  workers  who  had  "  had  the  larger  increases 
in  the  clothing  industry  of  Chicago  are  better  off  by  15  per 
cent,  or  more  than  they  were  with  equal  employment  in 
June  or  July,  1919,  and  8  or  9  per  cent,  better  off  than  im- 
mediately after  the  wage  award  of  December,  1919.  Only  a 
small  number  of  the  workers  are  less  than  10  per  cent,  better 
off  in  respect  to  purchasing  power  of  their  wage  rates  than 
they  were  in  June  or  July,  1919,  and  these  are  some  8  or  9 
per  cent,  better  off  than  they  were  left  by  the  award  of 
December,  1919." 

The  Board  therefore  held  that  in  view  of  the  general  sit- 
uation that  a  reduction  within  the  limits  of  the  change  in  the 
cost  of  living  was  justified.  Moreover,  the  chairman  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  some  reduction  in  wages  at  this  time 
will  be  of  assistance  to  the  market  situation  and  to  the  agree- 
ment. 

For  the  above  reasons,  the  Board  of  Arbitration  therefore 
ordered  the  following  reductions  in  the  wages  of  workers  in 
tailor  shops: 

"  (a)  that  with  the  exception  of  those  who  came  in  the  *  five 
per  cent,  class  '  under  the  award  of  December,  1919,  and  except 
for  cutters,  trimmers  (other  than  shop  trimmers),  and  appren- 
tices, the  wages  and  piece  rates  of  the  workers  employed  by  the 
manufacturers  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  also  of  those  of  the 
workers  employed  by  the  several  contractors  doing  work  for 
these  manufacturers,  shall  be  reduced  ten  per  cent.  (10%), 
this  reduction  to  become  effective  at  the  beginning  of  the  pay- 
roll week  in  each  house  on  or  following  April  28,  1921.  The 
wages  of  no  week  worker  may,  however,  be  reduced  below  the 
sum  of  $15.00  per  week,  which  is  the  present  minimum  wage 
for  learners  in  tailor  shops  and  which  is  hereby  continued  in 
effect." 


182      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

**  (b)  That  the  wages  of  the  workers  or  sections  falling 
within  the  *  five  per  cent,  class  '  under  the  award  of  December, 
1919,  shall  be  reduced  five  per  cent.  (5%),  effective  as  of  date 
above  indicated. 

**  (c)  That  the  norms  for  tailors,  examiners,  bushelmen  and 
bushel  girls  shall  be  reduced  by  ten  per  cent.,  and  thus  reduced, 
are  continued  in  effect  and  shall  be  observed  as  hitherto." 

The  Board  ordered  a  reduction  of  5  per  cent,  in  the  wages 
of  trimmers  and  of  other  workers  in  the  trimming-room, 
provided,  however,  that  in  no  event  shall  any  wage  be  re- 
duced below  the  sum  of  $15  per  week. 

The  award  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  did  not  make  a 
reduction  in  the  wages  of  cutters  or  of  apprentice  cutters. 
In  this  case  the  Board  decided  that : 

"  The  Chairman  is  of  the  opinion  that  $45.00  per  week  is 
none  too  much  at  this  time  for  a  good,  average  cutter.  The 
majority  of  cutters  are  mature  men  with  families  to  support 
from  their  earnings.  As  tested  by  what  other  union  men  of 
comparable  ability,  training  and  responsibility  receive  in  Chi- 
cago, the  wage  of  $45.00  is  not  a  high  one.  Moreover,  the 
cutters  have  not  advanced  as  rapidly  in  wages  as  have  their 
fellows  in  the  tailor  shops.  The  Board  will  therefore  not  rule 
with  reference  to  cutters'  wages  in  such  a  manner  as  to  compel 
any  reduction  in  the  average  received." 

It  will  be  recalled  that  the  employers  had  requested  a  wage 
cut  of  25  per  cent,  for  these  workers  as  well  as  for  the  other 
workers  in  the  clothing  industry  and  had  asked  in  addition 
for  the  establishment  of  "  automatically  enforceable  stand- 
ards of  production  "  in  cutting  and  trimming  rooms.  Such 
standards  would  represent  a  change  from  the  group  stand- 
ards, which  had  been  set  by  the  cutters'  commission  cre- 
ated by  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  of  Decem- 
ber, 1919,  to  individual  standards  of  production  under  which 
the  cutter  or  trimmer  would  be  paid  according  to  his  pro- 
duction. 

When  the  cutters  asked  for  a  wage  increase  in  December, 
1919,  the  manufacturers  complained  of  reduced  production. 
To  meet  the  problem  presented  the  Board  then  appointed  a 
commission  to  set  standards  of  production,  which  were  sub- 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     183 

sequently  approved  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  The 
manufacturers  and  the  union  had,  at  that  time,  agreed  upon 
standards  "  in  the  form  of  an  average  for  the  cutters  re- 
ceiving the  minimum  or  about  the  minimum  wage  set  by 
the  Board."  The  "  group  standards  "  then  fixed  had  not 
worked  satisfactorily,  said  the  manufacturers,  and  therefore 
they  now  demanded  individual  standards  "  automatically  en- 
forceable " — ^i.  e.  a  system  of  payment  according  to  pro- 
duction amounting  to  "  a  piece-work  system  under  which 
the  worker  would  be  paid,  not  for  the  quantity  of  work 
turned  out  during  the  payroll  period,  but  according  to  the 
quantity  turned  out  during  an  earlier  period." 

The  chairman  held  that  while  he  recognized  the  failure  of 
the  so-called  "  group  standards  "  he  was  of  the  opinion  that 
the  automatic  enforceable  standard  system  requested  by  the 
manufacturers  would  be  undesirable  from  the  point  of  view 
of  both  management  and  workers.     He  said  on  this  point: 

"  On  the  one  hand,  it  would  give  rise  to  problems  of  quality, 
of  yardage,  of  disinclination  to  do  certain  kinds  of  work  on 
which  the  worker  felt  that  he  could  not  make  as  good  a  record 
as  on  some  other.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  regarded  as 
unfair  by  workers  because  the  allowance  could  never  be  made 
exact;  the  work  cannot  always  be  divided  evenly  among  the 
workers;  it  is  easily  possible  to  change  the  quaUty  of  work 
required  or  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  done;  it  is  very 
difficult  to  make  allowances  for  time  lost  through  no  fault  of 
the  worker ;  and,  in  special  order  houses  especially,  there  is  fre- 
quent waiting  for  work.  For  these  reasons  and  the  further 
reason  that  considerations  other  than  output  should  havt 
weight,  the  Chairman  is  of  the  opinion  that  cutting  in  this  mar- 
ket is  not  a  piece  work  job.  Nor  can  there  in  any  strict  sense 
of  the  term  be  '  automatically  enforceable  standards.*  " 

He  held,  however,  that  the  problem  of  production  was 
one  "  which  calls  for  solution  in  the  interests  of  the  manu- 
facturers, workers  and  impartial  chairman,"  and  that  the 
solution  would  be  found  in  establishing  a  closer  relation 
between  work  done  and  wages.  The  failure  of  the  group 
standard  system  he  ascribed  primarily  to  the  fact  that  the 
faster  worker  was  obliged  under  that  system  to  give  greater 


184      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

production  without  proportionate  reward  to  make  up  for 
the  deficiency  of  the  slower  worker,  so  that  the  average  for 
the  group  might  be  maintained. 

Accordingly  the  decision  of  the  chairman  directed  the  es- 
tabhshment  of  two  cutters'  commissions  to  fix  standards  of 
production,  where  none  now  existed  and  to  revise  existing 
standards  "  at  those  points  where  experience  has  shown  the 
necessity  for  such  revision."  Cutters  were  to  be  classified 
into  five  groups  for  the  purpose  of  relating  production  to 
wages  as  follows: 

Wage 
Class.  Production.  Per  Week. 

A         115  per  cent,  or  more  of  standard $49.00 

B         105  per  cent,  but  less  than  115  per  cent,  of 

standard    47 .  00 

C         95  per  cent,  but  less  than  105  per  cent,   of 

standard   45 .  00 

D         85  per  cent,  but  less  than  95  per  cent,  of  stand- 
ard      43 . 00 

E         Less  than  85  per  cent 41 .  00 

I  — . 

The  classification  of  cutters  was  to  become  effective  one 
month  after  standards  had  been  fixed  by  the  commission 
and  approved  by  the  Board.  It  was  provided  further  that 
no  cutter  should  be  reduced  more  than  $4.00  from  present 
wages  on  account  of  reduction  in  production.  To  make 
allowance  for  length  of  service  it  was  provided  that  no  cutter 
**  employed  in  a  house  for  five  years  or  more  shall  be  re- 
duced below  $43  per  week." 

The  Board  specifically  ordered  that  there  should  be  no 
changes  in  the  minimum  scale  or  the  wages  of  apprentices 
in  the  cutting-room.  Provision  was  made  for  the  setting  up 
of  such  machinery  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  administration 
of  the  classification  scheme.  The  Board  also  directed  the 
commission  to  set  similar  standards  of  production  and  wages 
for  the  trimmers,  as  soon  as  the  standards  for  cutters  had 
been  established. 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     185 

There  still  remained  for  decision  the  request  of  the  manu- 
facturers for  a  reduction  of  those  piece-work  rates  which 
yielded  earnings  substantially  in  excess  of  the  market  norms. 
While  agreeing  in  principle  that  the  manufacturers  should 
be  permitted  to  reduce  so-called  "  peaks  "  whenever  the 
high  earnings  of  workers  under  the  existing  rates  did  not 
result  from  extra  effort  and  skill,  the  chairman  held  that 
each  case  would  require  special  investigation  and  individual 
action  so  that  the  fundamental  rule  in  the  market  relating  to 
piece-work  rates,  namely  *'  equal  pay  for  equal  effort "  and 
additional  pay  for  additional  effort  would  not  be  violated. 
A  commission  consisting  of  a  representative  of  the  union, 
Mr.  Marimpietri,  and  the  labor  manager  for  each  house  was 
set  up  to  investigate  and  report  on  these  cases.  Only  a  few 
cases  of  "  peaks  "  came  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  for 
subsequent  action,  many  of  the  cases  being  withdrawn  after 
investigation  by  the  commission.  The  entire  matter  was 
practically  disposed  of  in  the  case  of  the  Majestic  Tailoring 
Company,  decided  July  5,  1921.  The  company  asked  then 
that  piece-work  rates  for  22  operations  be  reduced.  The 
Board  held  that  it  would  make  no  changes  in  present  rates 
if  such  rates  were  above  the  market  level  for  similar  work 
because  of  the  prices  set  or  wages  paid  by  the  firm  before 
the  agreement  was  entered  into.  It  adhered,  in  other  words, 
to  the  same  general  principle  upon  which  the  decision  on  the 
main  question  of  wage  reduction  had  been  based — namely, 
that  the  Board  had  no  authority  to  reduce  standards  fixed 
by  agreement  between  the  manufacturers  and  the  union  or 
to  change  conditions  made  by  employers  before  there  was 
an  agreement.  Moreover,  the  chairman  held  that  with  regard 
to  "  peaks  "  it  would  not  reduce  piece-work  rates  voluntarily 
increased  by  the  firm  *'  without  collective  bargaining  "  and 
that  it  would  not  reduce  any  rate  unless  it  is  substantially 
in  excess  of  a  fair  price.  The  chairman  therefore  held  that 
18  of  22  alleged  "  peaks  "  would  not  be  ordered  changed. 
In  the  other  four  piece-work  rates,  it  ordered  only  slight 
reductions. 


186     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Four  wage  arbitrations  have  been  held  in  the  Chicago 
market.  In  1917  only  the  workers  employed  by  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx  were  directly  affected.  In  the  last 
three  proceedings  the  arbitration  decisions  have  applied  to 
the  entire  Chicago  market.  Wage  increases  were  granted  in 
May,  1917,  and  December,  1919.  The  decision  in  the  arbi- 
tration proceedings  in  1920  made  no  change  in  wage  levels. 
In  April,  1921,  the  award  favored  the  employers,  and  wage 
reductions  for  the  workers  in  the  tailor  shops,  in  some  cases 
of  10  per  cent,  and  in  others  of  5  per  cent.,  were  made. 

The  Board  of  Arbitration  in  the  proceedings  of  1917 
found  a  difficult  situation.  On  the  one  hand  it  was  clear 
that  the  cost  of  living  had  risen  and  was  continuing  to  go 
higher.  Wages  measured  in  terms  of  food  and  other  neces- 
saries of  life  which  money  wages  could  buy  were  being  re- 
duced. Unless  the  worker  was  given  a  wage  increase  his 
standards  would  be  impaired.  On  the  other  hand,  the  case  of 
the  clothing  worker  had  not  been  brought  before  the  Board 
of  Arbitration  until  after  the  firm  had  fixed  its  prices  for  the 
season  and  had  made  sales  at  these  prices.  An  award  for 
the  workers  at  that  time  would  not  have  permitted  the  manu- 
facturers to  pass  any  additional  burden  on  to  the  consimier, 
certainly  not  to  the  extent  that  competitive  conditions  and 
the  consiraier's  willingness  to  pay  might  have  permitted  at 
the  beginning  of  the  season.  A  decision  favoring  the  em- 
ployer would  however  impose  a  hardship  on  the  workers. 
The  Board  decided  to  preserve  workers'  standards,  although 
it  pointed  out  its  obligation  under  more  normal  conditions 
not  to  put  the  manufacturer  at  a  business  disadvantage. 

Different  conditions  confronted  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
in  December,  1919.  The  industry  was  extraordinarily  pros- 
perous. The  union  was  pressing  for  higher  standards. 
Market  conditions  of  supply  and  demand  were  favorable  to 
the  workers.  The  manufacturers  contended  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  Board  to  refuse  to  permit  the  workers  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  these  conditions  because  to  do  so  would  be  con- 
trary to  "  public  policy."  The  chairman  of  the  Board  held 
that  under  the  competitive  system  "  labor  had  had  to  bar- 


THE  GREAT  WAGE  ARBITRATIONS     187 

gain  for  its  wages  and  it  cannot  be  expected  to  forego  en- 
tirely the  advantages  which  market  conditions  now  afford." 
It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  in  the  brief  submitted  by 
the  manufacturers  in  the  arbitration  proceedings  of  March, 
1921,  they  said  on  page  44  that  "  by  and  large,  progress  of 
wage  earners  is  made  by  taking  advantage  of  normal  adjust- 
ment to  cost  of  living  during  an  upward  swing  and  by  hold- 
ing some  part  of  the  increase  when  the  tide  turns." 

In  the  wage  arbitration  of  July  and  August,  1920,  the 
serious  condition  with  which  the  clothing  industry  was  then 
confronted  was  the  outstanding  fact.  The  effects  of  the 
depression  were  already  evident  in  the  clothing  industry. 
Though  the  cost  of  living  had  risen  and  earnings  had  fallen 
because  of  decreased  volume  of  employment,  no  relief  could 
be  forthcoming  from  a  business  situation  then  so  acute.  The 
Board  made  no  attempt  to  anticipate  a  possible  change  in 
the  bargaining  strength  of  the  parties  to  the  agreement.  It 
made  no  change  in  the  existing  wage  level. 

The  last  wage  arbitration  took  place  after  the  first  stage 
of  the  depression  which  had  first  affected  the  industry  in 
the  spring  of  1920  had  passed.  Inventories  of  raw  materials 
and  stocks  of  clothing  had,  generally  speaking,  been  liqui- 
dated with  some  loss  to  the  manufacturers.  The  earnings 
of  the  workers  on  the  other  hand  had  suffered  because  of 
wide-spread  unemployment.  The  question  presented  to  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  was  whether  it  was  within  the  province 
of  the  Board  to  reduce  the  standards  of  the  workers  fixed 
by  the  agreement  on  the  ground  (1)  that  labor  should  share 
with  the  manufacturers  the  losses  of  liquidation  and  (2)  that 
a  reduction  of  wages  would  permit  lower  prices  to  consumers 
and  thus  stimulate  business.  To  this  question  the  chair- 
man answered  that  he  was  not  justified  in  reducing  wage 
standards  below  what  the  workers  had  gained  by  agree- 
ment with  the  manufacturers.  Employers  had  not  shared 
profits  with  the  workers.  There  was  no  agreement  that 
workers  should  share  losses  with  the  manufacturers. 

But,  the  Board  maintained,  it  did  have  the  power  and 
was  justified  in  reducing  wages  to  the  extent  that  the  cost  of 


188     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

living  had  decreased,  but  only  to  that  extent.  In  other  words, 
while  the  Boai'd  could  reduce  money  wages,  it  could  not 
cut  real  wages — wages  measured  by  the  amount  of  food, 
clothing,  shelter,  etc.,  which  the  wages  could  purchase — 
when  standards  had  been  fixed  by  agrement  between  the 
manufacturers  and  the  union. 

Under  the  "  emergency  clause  "  of  the  agreement  which 
provides  for  wage  changes  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration, 
the  Board,  it  will  be  recalled,  has  wide  powers.  It  is  given 
authority  to  make  such  changes  in  wages  as  in  its  judgment 
seems  proper.  The  Board  of  Arbitration  has,  however, 
severely  limited  its  own  authority.  It  has  not  arbitrarily 
attempted  to  fix  a  "  fair  wage."  In  the  December,  1919, 
arbitration  the  chairman,  when  faced  directly  with  the  issue, 
decided  that  the  Board  should  not  interpose  its  authority  to 
prevent  the  union  from  bettering  the  standards  of  the 
workers  when  the  industry  could  afford  it  on  the  ground, 
which  the  employers  had  urged,  of  '*  protecting  the  con- 
suming public."  He  granted  a  wage  increase  equal  in 
amount  to  what  had  been  given  in  other  clothing  markets. 
Again  in  April,  1921,  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  though 
granting  a  wage  reduction,  refused  to  lower  the  standards 
of  living  of  the  workers  attained  by  the  union  through 
direct  negotiation.  The  chairman  did  not  accept  the  theory 
of  "  wage  liquidation  "  used  so  prevalently  in  these  days  of 
wage  reductions  to  justify,  if  possible,  drastic  wage  cuts. 
He  confined  himself  to  a  wage  adjustment  in  conformity 
with  changes  in  living  cost. 


PART  III 
GOVERNMENT  IN  INDUSTRY 


- 

^^^K^m^ 

a 

John  E.  Williams 
lairman,  Board  of  Arbitration,  1912-1919 

CHAPTER  IX 

INTRODUCTION 

The  story  of  the  rise  of  the  clothing  workers  in  Chicago 
would  be  seriously  incomplete  without  accounting  for  their 
achievement  of  citizenship  rights  in  the  industry.  The 
growth  of  the  workers'  rights  as  free  partners  in  the  enter- 
prise of  producing  clothing  dates  from  the  settlement  of  the 
1910  strike.  By  that  settlement  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx  agreed  to  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Arbitration 
with  power  to  *'  fix  a  method  for  settlement  of  grievances,  if 
any,  in  the  future."  It  was  an  act  of  industrial  statesman- 
ship on  the  part  of  one  firm.  But  it  can  scarcely  be  supposed 
that  those  responsible  for  the  step  taken  foresaw  how  far- 
reaching  would  be  its  consequences  within  a  few  years.  They 
were,  in  fact,  laying  the  foundation  for  a  system  of  industrial 
government  that  was  destined  within  a  decade  to  revolution- 
ize industrial  relations  in  all  the  important  clothing  markets 
of  the  country.  Its  influence  upon  the  development  of  work- 
ers' control  in  related  industries  cannot  yet  be  adequately 
estimated. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  strike,  absolutism  had  held  virtually 
unbroken  sway  in  the  tailor  shops  of  Chicago.  Since  then, 
it  has  been  forced  out  from  one  stronghold  after  another 
through  the  organized  power  of  the  workers,  until  in  1919  it 
was  completely  superseded  by  constitutional  rule.  Owner- 
ship of  a  clothing  factory  at  one  time  conferred  upon  the 
employer  almost  unlimited  personal  authority  over  the  lives 
and  happiness  of  the  workers  in  his  employ.  To-day,  its 
claims  are  being  increasing^  subordinated  to  the  needs  of 
the  industry  as  a  joint  enterprise  and  a  public  utility.  The 
rights  of  the  owners  to  all  possible  profits  have  yielded 
ground  to  the  demands  of  expert  management  for  efficiency 
on  one  side,  and  to  the  human  rights  and  interests  of  the 
workers  on  the  other.     Government  in  the  industry  to-day 


#1, 


192      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

means  that  personal  and  arbitrary  authority  has  given  way 
to  law  and  joint  determination  in  all  matters  affecting  the 
workers'  interests.  The  economic  power  of  the  parties  to 
production  can  express  itself  in  the  making  and  the  changing 
of  the  laws,  but  once  established  by  agreement  these  laws 
govern  both,  and  cannot  be  ignored  or  violated  with  im- 
punity. 

This  fundamental  change  must  be  understood  in  the  light 
of  the  growth  of  workers'  organization  and  of  the  economic 
power  acquired  by  the  workers  as  a  consequence  of  organiza- 
tion.   But  the  characteristic  fact  is  the  manner  in  which  the 
union's  power  has  been  exercised  in  this  case — the  fact  of 
leadership  with  a  vision.    Other  trade  unions  in  this  country 
f     have  been  content  to  use  their  power  negatively  and  obstruc- 
^      tivelv.    They  have  used  it  to  place  narrow  restrictions  upon 
(J^ ^  f^^    management,  Ijut  have  not  desired  to  share  also  in  manage- 
Jii4^    lJA    ment's  responsibilities.     The  interests  of  the  industry  were 
^  liot  their  concern.    The  Amalgamated,  on  the  other  hand, 

has  been  keenly  alive  to  the  welfare  and  development  of  the 
clothing  industry.  It  has,  indeed,  identified  its  own  perma- 
nent interests  with  those  of  the  industry,  and  is  concerned  to 
see  it  grow  into  ever  greater  efficiency  and  prosperity.  Be- 
cause of  this  constructive  policy,  dictated  by  its  long-range 
outlook,  the  Amalgamated  has  been  aggressively  instru- 
mental in  setting  up  jointly  with  the  clothing  manufacturers 
a  constitutional  form  of  government  for  the  industry. 
This  government,  culminating  in  the  "  impartial  machinery," 
has  been  promoted  by  the  union,  who  are  willing  to  have  it 
curb  their  own  freedom  of  action,  if  necessary,  in  the  interest 
of  the  industry.  The  union  has  voluntarily  relinquished  the 
right  of  direct  action  or  of  using  its  economic  strength  with- 
out stint  or  limit  for  gaining  present  advantages  that  might 
injure  the  larger  and  more  enduring  interests  of  the  industry 
as  a  whole. 

The  impartial  machinery  under  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and 
Marx  agreements — its  origin  and  constitution — has  been  de- 
scribed in  a  previous  chapter.  By  its  help  the  parties  con- 
cerned have  been  able  to  develop  in  peace  and  to  secure 


INTRODUCTION  193 

reasonable  justice  during  the  years  of  its  operation.  Its  suc- 
cess justified  its  extension  to  the  rest  of  the  market,  when, 
in  1919,  the  other  houses  came  under  a  similar  agreement 
with  the  union.  In  this  case  it  was  not  necessary  to  repeat 
the  experimental  stages  of  the  enterprise — its  trials  and 
errors.  The  system  was  adopted  in  its  full-grown  form.  A 
Trade  Board  and  a  Board  of  Arbitration  were  set  up,  on  the 
pattern  of  the  existing  ones,  with  oflSces  in  the  Medinah 
Building.  They  were  given  jurisdiction  over  all  the  firms 
belonging  to  the  three  manufacturers'  associations,  which 
were  for  this  purpose  united  in  the  Chicago  Industrial  Fed- 
eration of  Clothing  Manufacturers.  These  firms,  either  in- 
dividually or  in  groups,  engaged  labor  managers — ^men  who 
were  experts  in  industrial  relations — to  administer  their  labor 
policy  in  keeping  with  the  requirements  of  the  agreement, 
and  to  represent  them  before  the  boards  in  all  hearings  affect- 
ing their  interests. 

In  jointly  selecting  the  first  impartial  chairman  of  the 
new  Trade  Board,  the  parties  were  fortunate  in  securing  for 
the  place  Professor  Harry  A.  Millis,  economist,  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago.  Professor  James  H.  Tufts  had  early  in 
the  year  succeeded  Mr.  Williams  as  chairman  of  the  Board 
of  Arbitration  for  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx.  He  was  now 
chosen  to  preside  also  over  the  corresponding  Board  for  the 
Federation.  When,  toward  the  close  of  1920,  Professor 
Tufts  resigned  owing  to  his  absence  from  the  city,  he  was 
succeeded  by  Professor  Millis.  The  vacancy  created  in  the 
Trade  Board  by  the  promotion  of  Professor  Millis  was  pres- 
ently filled  by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Benjamin  M.  Squires, 
who  brought  to  the  work  the  experience  of  a  mediator  in  the 
shipbuilding  industry  during  the  war. 

Through  the  personality  of  Dr.  Tufts  and  later  of  Dr. 
Millis,  the  impartial  machinery  for  the  entire  market  has 
from  the  outset  been  unified  at  the  top.  This  unity  facilitated 
the  carrying  over  to  the  recently  organized  houses  of  the 
accimiulated  body  of  principle  and  precedent  that  had  grown 
out  of  some  eight  years'  experience  under  the  Hart,  Schaffner 
and   Marx   agreements.      The    new   agreement   was    itself 


194      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

modeled  after  the  other  in  all  its  essential  features.  More- 
over, as  a  result  of  the  impartial  chairman's  decisions  under 
it  there  grew  up  a  rule  that  on  any  point  in  dispute  not 
covered  by  the  language  of  the  new  agreement,  the  practice 
or  precedent  obtaining  for  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  is  to  be 
binding  for  all  alike.  Thus  the  whole  Chicago  industry  is,  in 
effect,  governed  by  a  single  collective  agreement  and  a  single 
body  of  law. 

Viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  constitutional  government, 
the  impartial  machinery  corresponds  to  the  judiciary  or  the 
courts.  It  comes  into  operation  on  the  complaint  of  one  or 
both  of  the  parties  to  adjust  differences  between  them  that 
cannot  be  promptly  settled  by  direct  conference.  It  hears 
and  adjudicates  these  differences  in  accordance  with  rules 
and  principles  laid  down  in  the  agreement  and  in  previous 
decisions  under  the  agreement.  In  the  absence  of  such 
written  law,  the  impartial  chairman  is  guided  by  recognized 
custom  or  usage  in  the  market.  Decisions  of  the  boards, 
insofar  as  they  bear  on  the  general  principle  or  a  market 
situation,  in  distinction  from  a  particular  or  unique  condition, 
in  turn  make  new  law  through  serving  as  precedents  to 
govern  future  cases.  The  Board  of  Arbitration,  it  is  true, 
is  at  least  theoretically  empowered  to  disregard  past  prece- 
dents and  even  to  modify  the  agreement  itself  in  response  to 
new  needs  of  the  industry  created  by  changing  conditions. 
In  practice,  however,  the  Board  exercises  this  power  con- 
servatively. It  endeavors,  rather,  to  bring  about  such  needed 
changes  in  the  fundamental  law  through  the  processes  of 
joint  negotiation  and  agreement  between  the  parties  them- 
selves. Legislation,  as  such,  is  properly  their  work,  and  the 
method  is  that  of  collective  bargaining. 

The  two  functions — the  making  of  law  and  its  application 
or  interpretation — are  not,  however,  sharply  differentiated 
in  this  industrial  government.  The  making  of  the  agreement 
itself  is,  to  be  sure,  the  result  of  direct  negotiation  of  the 
union  with  the  manufacturers.  But  this  is  only  the  ground- 
work. Many  arrangements  and  administrative  details  have 
to  be  worked  out  from  time  to  time  on  the  basis  of  joint  in- 


INTRODUCTION  195 

vestigation  and  weighing  of  the  facts.  For  this  purpose  semi- 
administrative,  semi-legislative  committees  or  commissions 
have  to  be  created.  They  are  frequently  appointed  or  even 
presided  over  by  the  impartial  chairman,  who  decides  in  the 
event  of  disagreement.  Occasions  are  numerous,  moreover, 
when  the  chairman  by  means  of  mediation  can  bring  about 
agreement  between  the  parties  even  after  the  dispute  has  been 
brought  to  a  hearing.  He  thereby  obviates  the  necessity  for 
imposing  a  decision  that,  while  it  would  be  obeyed,  might  not 
improve  the  mutual  attitude  of  the  parties.  When  he  does 
render  a  decision,  it  does  not  merely  express  his  private 
opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  case  before  him.  Nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  it  merely  a  technical  adjudication  of  the  issue 
on  the  basis  of  formal  rules  or  precedents  derived  from  past 
experience.  The  practice  of  the  adjustment  boards  has  been 
even  better  than  their  theory.  It  has  consistently  aimed  at 
concrete  justice  and  has  attained  this  aim  within  the  obvious 
limitations  imposed  by  the  character  of  our  industrial  situa- 
tion, so  full  of  underlying  conflict. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT 

An  essential  condition  of  an  efficient  industry  is  efficient 
management.  An  indispensable  element  in  efficient  manage- 
ment is  the  power  of  initiative  and  execution.  In  other 
words,  those  who  manage  the  industry  must  be  left  free  to 
devise  such  new  methods  and  processes  as  they  conceive  to 
be  of  technical  advantage,  and  they  must  have  the  authority 
to  introduce  these  changes  without  undue  resistance  from 
the  workers  affected  by  them.  In  an  industry  where  the 
workers  have  no  voice  or  recognized  rights,  the  management 
theoretically  has  a  free  hand  in  giving  orders,  however  these 
may  affect  the  interests  of  the  workers.  It  does  not  follow, 
however,  that  such  autocratic  management  is  the  most  effi- 
cient. On  the  contrary,  the  resistance  of  the  workers  to  in- 
novations which  they  regard  as  harmful  to  their  own  inter- 
ests— either  by  way  of  undermining  wage  standards,  of 
speeding  up,  or  of  reducing  employment — is  merely  aggra- 
vated. It  is  apt  to  take  the  form  of  ca'canny  or  sabotage, 
just  because  there  is  no  effective  organization  to  give  expres- 
sion to  their  discontent  and  to  obtain  redress. 

It  is  different  in  the  clothing  industry  today.  With  a 
A»f  powerful  organization  of  the  workers  to  afford  them  pro- 
i\  iUtection  in  their  interests  and  their  standards,  it  has  become 
safe  to  entrust  management  with  the  powers  and  functions 
needed  for  efficient  administration.  It  has  become  safe,  be- 
cause the  orders  of  the  management  are  now  of  a  provisional 
character  rather  than,  as  formerly,  absolute  and  undebatable. 
They  can  be  challenged  by  the  workers  in  regular  form  and 
reviewed  by  an  impartial  board  with  respect  to  their  effect 
on  the  workers'  rights  and  standards.  If  they  invade  these 
rights  of  the  workers  or  in  any  manner  conflict  with  the  in- 
tent of  the  agreement,  orders  of  management  can  be  vetoed 
by  the  Trade  Board  and  the  workers  compensated  for  any 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        197 

loss  actually  sustained  by  them  through  the  execution  of 
such  orders.  On  the  workers'  side  there  is  the  obligation  to 
carry  out  all  orders  given  by  the  management,  and  to  abide 
the  decision  of  the  Trade  Board  in  cases  of  dispute.  Neither 
they  nor  their  officials  are  to  set  themselves  up  as  judges  of 
the  legality  of  the  management's  action  by  resorting  to  direct 
action  against  it.  In  a  joint  memorandum  supplementary  to 
the  Hart,  Schaifner  and  Marx  Agreement  of  1919,  this  point 
was  covered  in  the  following  language:  "  The  function  of 
interpreting  the  agreement  belongs  to  the  Trade  Board  and 
Board  of  Arbitration.  The  responsibility  of  management 
requires  the  giving  of  orders  promptly  and  authoritatively. 
In  order  to  protect  the  employes  and  maintain  the  integrity 
of  the  agreement  the  Trade  Board  shall  have  the  right  to 
set  aside  and  annul  any  executive  order  that  is  in  conflict 
with  the  agreement  or  decisions.  Such  executive  orders,  how- 
ever, are  valid  until  thus  passed  upon  and  will  be  obeyed  by 
the  employes." 

By  making  executive  orders  subject  to  protest  by  the  union 
and  to  review  and  veto  by  the  impartial  machinery,  the  man- 
agement gains  a  desirable  freedom  of  initiative  while  the 
workers  secure  a  guarantee  against  injury  to  their  rights 
and  interests.  The  limits  upon  the  practical  freedom  of 
action  of  management  are  drawn  at  the  point  where  it  im- 
pinges upon  the  essential  interests  and  rights  of  the  workers 
and  their  organization. 

Within  these  practical  limits  the  workers  as  an  organized 
body  respect  the  rights  of  management  to  conduct  the  in- 
dustry in  accordance  with  its  own  insight,  pohcies  and 
methods.  They  do  not  seek  to  obstruct  the  executive  activi- 
ties of  management  where  these  do  not  run  counter  to  the 
guaranteed  rights  of  the  workers.  On  the  contrary,  to  the 
extent  that  the  purposes  of  management  aim  at  the  orderly 
and  efficient  operation  of  the  industry,  the  union  endorses 
them  and  agrees  to  co-operate  with  the  management  in  mak- 
ing possible  their  realization.  This  relationship  of  a  mutual 
recognition  of  rights  as  a  guiding  principle  for  the  parties 
in  all  their  dealings  has  been  formulated  by  Mr.  Williams 


198     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


V 


in  the  preamble  to  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement. 

It  reads,  in  part,  as  follows: 

"  On  the  part  of  the  employer  it  is  the  intention  and  expecta- 
tion that  this  compact  of  peace  will  result  in  the  establishment 
and  maintenance  of  a  high  order  of  discipline  and  efficiency 
by  the  willing  co-operation  of  union  and  workers,  rather  than 
by  the  old  method  of  surveillance  and  coercion;  that  by  the 
exercise  of  this  discipline  all  stoppages  and  interruptions  of 
work,  and  all  wilful  violations  of  rules  will  cease;  that  good 
standards  of  workmanship  and  conduct  will  be  maintained  and 
a  proper  quantity,  quality  and  cost  of  production  will  be  as- 
sured ;  and  that  out  of  its  operation  will  issue  such  co-operation 
and  good  will  between  employers,  foremen,  union  and  workers 
as  will  prevent  misunderstanding  and  friction  and  make  for 
good  team  work,  good  business,  mutual  advantage  and  mutual 
respect." 

In  conceding  to  the  employer  this  measure  of  recognition 
of  his  rights,  the  workers  do  not  compromise  their  own 
rights  in  any  sense.  Rather  do  they  assure  themselves, 
through  a  give-and-take  relationship,  of  a  fuller  and  freer 
recognition  of  their  own  rights  and  purposes  on  the  part 
of  the  employer.  These  rights  and  purposes  of  the  workers, 
moreover,  concern  not  merely  the  specific  shop  conditions 
and  working  standards  necessary  for  their  welfare  as  em- 
ployes. They  concern  also  those  more  general  and  per- 
manent interests  pertaining  to  the  strength  and  prosperity 
of  the  workers'  organization  as  an  agency  of  industrial 
government. 

Chief  among  these  permanent  interests  of  the  workers  for 
the  sake  of  which  they  have  undertaken  the  responsibilities 
of  the  agreement,  is  that  of  building  up  within  the  industry 
a  stable  and  effective  organization  of  their  own.  They  un- 
derstand that  upon  the  maintenance  of  such  an  organization 
ultimately  depends  the  protection  of  all  their  concrete  in- 
terests as  workers.  And  they  have  asserted  this  understand- 
^  ^  ing  as  a  fundamental  purpose  of  the  agreement  in  another 

^  ^  paragraph  of  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  preamble,  as 
follows : 

"  On  the  part  of  the  union  it  is  the  intention  and  expecta- 
tion that  this  compact  will,  with  the  co-operation  of  the  em- 


/ 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        199 

ployer,  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to  maintain,  strengthen,  and 
solidify  its  organization,  so  that  it  may  be  made  strong  enough, 
and  efficient  enough,  to  co-operate  as  contemplated  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph;  and  also  that  it  may  be  strong  enough  to 
command  the  respect  of  the  employer  without  being  forced  to 
resort  to  militant  or  unfriendly  measures." 

Taken  in  conjunction  with  the  paragraph  previously 
quoted,  this  statement  in  practice  implies  nothing  less  than 
the  creation  of  a  working  partnership  between  the  employer 
and  the  union  for  the  administration  of  all  industrial  rela- 
tions. Such  a  joint  government  of  the  industry  on  its  human 
or  labor  side  represents  an  advanced  stage  of  what  for  want 
of  a  better  term  is  known  as 

COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING 

Collective  bargaining  is  the  law-making  function  in  in- 
dustry. It  does  not  supplant  the  administrative  function  of 
management,  but  lays  down  the  rules  of  the  game — sets  the 
limits  and  standards,  which  the  management  must  observe 
in  its  dealings  with  the  people.  It  is  the  method  by  which 
the  people  through  their  representatives  exercise  control  over 
the  conditions  of  their  work  and  pay.  This  method  did  not 
spring  into  existence  full-fledged  in  the  clothing  industry. 
It  could  not  become  operative  until  the  union  had  been  offi- 
cially recognized  by  the  employer.  The  agreement  of  1911 
made  no  provision  for  collective  bargaining.  Under  it  the 
company  retained  unrestricted  freedom  of  action,  while  con- 
ceding to  the  people  the  right  of  presenting  their  grievances 
before  an  Arbitration  Committee,  and  later  before  the  Trade 
Board.  Since  that  time,  with  the  growing  strength  of  the 
union  more  and  more  ground  has  been  won  for  the  operation 
of  collective  bargaining,  until  today  all  "  labor  conditions," 
or  matters  affecting  the  workers'  interests,  broadly  conceived, 
are  included  within  its  scope. 

Collective  bargaining  as  a  union  device  has  the  double  pur- 
pose of  promoting  the  material  interests  of  all  its  members 
and  at  the  same  time  protecting  and  strengthening  its  own 
existence  as  an  organization.     Both  of  these  purposes  are 


200     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


p 


A 


best  served  in  a  competitive  industry  like  the  clothing  in- 
dustry by  a  policy  of  standardization.  In  pursuance  of  such 
a  policy,  the  union  endeavors  to  make  an  agreement  with 
all  the  employers  in  the  market,  and  even  in  other  competing 
markets,  covering  certain  basic  standards  and  working  con- 
ditions. In  this  way  competition  among  employers  may  not 
be  carried  on  at  the  expense  of  their  workers  and  no  undue 
advantage  is  enjoyed  by  one  portion  of  the  industry  at  the 
expense  of  another.  No  employer  may  depart  from  such 
standards,  once  jointly  established,  unless  a  change  is  au- 
thorized by  further  joint  action  of  the  parties  to  the  agree- 
ment, i.e.,  by  collective  bargaining.  The  standards  are  like- 
wise binding  upon  the  workers.  Thus,  the  union  is  ready 
to  bring  pressure  to  bear,  through  the  impartial  machinery, 
upon  any  employer  who  should  attempt  to  alter  wage  or 
working  standards  in  his  factory  without  its  consent.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  prepared  to  disavow  or  penalize  the 
action  of  any  of  its  own  members  who  should  connive  at 
such  unlavrful  procedure,  whether  it  involve  a  lowering  or 
a  raising  of  standards. 

Individual  bargaining  may  bring  present  benefits  to  small 
groups  of  workers  here  and  there  who  are  more  fortunate 
than  their  fellows  in  respect  to  skill  or  scarcity.  But  such 
benefits  as  these  are  usually  obtained  at  the  expense  of  other 
workers  in  the  industry,  and  in  any  case  are  neither  perma- 
nent nor  secure  gains,  for  they  lack  the  supporting  power  of 
the  union  to  make  them  so.  Individual  bargaining,  more- 
over, tends  to  undermine  the  strength  and  solidarity  of  the 
union  itself  and  to  render  less  effective  its  collective  bargain- 
ing power.  If  workers  are  led  to  look  to  the  employer  rather 
than  to  their  own  organization  for  advancing  their  interests, 
they  may,  if  they  are  exceptional  individuals,  receive  favors 
and  promotion  at  his  hands.  But  for  the  great  mass  of 
workers,  at  least,  it  remains  as  true  as  ever  that  what  the 
employer  has  given  under  conditions  of  labor  shortage  he 
can  also  take  away  with  interest  when  conditions  change  in 
his  favor — unless  the  union  energetically  interferes  to  pro- 
tect the  gains. 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        201 

The  benefits  of  collective  bargaining  do  not,  however,  ac- 
crue exclusively  to  the  union  and  its  members.  The  em- 
ployers, especially  the  more  stable  and  responsible  among 
them,  come  in  for  a  share  of  the  beneficial  effects.  One  of 
the  outstanding  effects  of  collective  bargaining  is  its  stabiliz- 
ing tendency.  Standardization,  as  we  have  seen,  rules  out, 
so  far  as  possible,  all  differential  advantages  of  the  less  over 
the  more  scrupulous  employer  on  the  score  of  lower  wage 
or  working  conditions.  It  likewise  eliminates  competition 
among  workers  for  jobs  on  such  a  basis.  Finally,  it  mini- 
mizes fluctuations  in  the  relative  bargaining  strength  of  the 
two  parties  from  one  season  to  another  and  reduces  friction. 
The  total  effect  of  these  tendencies  is  the  stabilization  of  the 
labor  market  and  of  labor  relations  in  the  industry.  The 
employer  stands  to  gain  by  stability,  inasmuch  as  it  enables 
him  to  figure  his  labor  costs  in  advance  with  some  degree  of 
certainty,  and  releases  energies  otherwise  absorbed  in  the 
unproductive  business  of  petty  bargaining  with  his  labor. 
For  these  and  similar  reasons  do  progressive  employers  favor 
the  system  of  collective  bargaining,  once  they  have  been  in- 
duced to  embark  upon  it  by  coming  under  the  agreement 
with  the  union. 

And  yet,  collective  bargaining  involves  an  unwelcome 
check  upon  the  power  of  management  to  exercise  functions 
both  legislative  and  executive.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
instances  are  not  altogether  rare  of  employers  attempting  to 
proceed  either  by  individual  bargaining  with  their  own  em- 
ployes, or  by  executive  order  without  consulting  either  the 
people  or  their  representatives.  In  either  event  the  union 
has  recourse  to  the  Trade  Board.  The  former  of  the  two 
modes  of  procedure  named  seems  to  have  been  followed  by 
the  employer  in  a  certain  case^*  in  which  [^the  union  com-  ^-"^''^ 
plained  to  the  Trade  Board  that  the  manager  of  the  factory 
had  introduced  an  "honor  system"  into  the  finishing  section. 
About  fifteen  finishers  had  been  put  in  a  separate  class.    The 

*  The  numbers  above  the  line  refer  to  written  decisions  of  the  Trade  and 
Arbitration  Boards,  which  will  be  found  indexed  under  the  corresponding  num- 
bers, i.e.,  in  the  order  of  their  citation  in  the  text,  in  Appendix  I. 


202     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

coats  of  these  finishers  were  not  systematically  examined  as 
were  those  of  the  other  finishers,  though  they  were  examined 
occasionally.  The  union  claimed  that  the  system  was  breed- 
ing dissension  and  jealousy  among  the  girls  and  was  objec- 
tionable from  the  standpoint  of  the  unity  and  efficiency  of  the 
factory  as  well  as  the  organization.  The  company  replied 
that  the  arrangement  was  satisfactory  and  efficient,  tended 
to  put  a  premium  on  good  work,  and  had  occasioned  no  dis- 
pute or  dissension.  As  an  administrative  measure,  the  com- 
pany contended,  it  was  allowable  and  outside  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Trade  Board  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  the  workers 
were  injured  thereby. 

In  dealing  with  this  problem  the  Trade  Board  rested  its 
decision  upon  a  precedent  established  in  an  earlier  case,^ 
where  off-pressers  had  been  divided  into  "  honor  men  "  apd 
others  directly  under  the  control  of  the  examiners.  In  that 
case  the  following  ruling  had  been  given:  "  The  chairman 
of  the  Trade  Board  will  not  undertake  to  rule  in  the  matter 
beyond  the  point  of  ordering  the  installation  of  one  com- 
prehensive system,  leaving  to  the  company  the  selection  of 
which  of  the  two  systems  above  mentioned  it  desires  to  sub- 
stitute for  the  present  scheme."  The  effect  of  that  ruling 
was  to  require  equal  treatment  for  all  the  workers  in  the  sec- 
tion and  to  deny  the  company  the  right  of  according  prefer- 
ential treatment  to  some  and  thereby  discriminating  against 
others.  The  company  appealed  the  case  to  the  Board  of 
\  Arbitration,  and  the  chairman  ruled  as  follows: 

/  "  The  appeal  is  made  on  *  *  *  an  alleged  limitation  of 
the  administrative  powers  of  the  company  by  the  Trade  Board 
*  *  *  The  chairman  believes  that  the  administrative  power 
remains  in  the  hands  of  the  company  to  be  used  by  it  in  the  in- 
terest of  discipline  and  efficiency,  subject  to  review  by  the  board 
if  invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  worker  is  charged  by  the  union. 
In  the  present  instance,  the  result  of  the  rule  introduced  by  the 
company  designed  to  promote  the  efficiency  by  creating  a  roll 
of  honor  seems  to  have  been  unfortunate,  and  to  have  impaired 
the  efficiency  of  the  union  by  creating  dissatisfaction  and  dis- 
harmony among  its  members ;  and  its  discontinuance  is,  there- 
fore, directed.     The  chairman  doubts  the  wisdom  of  promoting 


y 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        208 

efficiency  by  creating  distinctions  between  workers,  and  suggests 
that  the  administrative  power  of  the  company  might  have  better 
results  if  used  some  other  way."  i 

Having  cited  the  foregoing  decision,  the  Trade  Board 
held  that  "  the  two  cases  are  quite  similar  except  that  the 
complaint  of  the  finishers  has  not  been  accompanied  by  a 
stoppage.  The  same  ruling  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
should  apply."  The  Trade  Board  accordingly  directed  that 
the  distinction  between  the  finishers  be  abolished  and  that 
the  system  of  examination  include  all  the  finishers. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  employer  is  limited  in  his  choice ! 
of  means  for  promoting  efficiency  to  such  devices  as  do  not, 
create  invidious  distinctions  between  workers,  or  otherwise  j^ 

"  impair  the  efficiency  of  the  union  ".    In  another  instance^    ,y    n  jwT 
phe  people  complained  of  the  use  by  the  company  of  a  black-       /)  J^      '  j, 
board  to  designate  publicly  pressers  who  fell  off  in  their  ^    « ^     u^ 
quality  and  amount  of  work.    The  union  contended  that  such  ^   ^    ' 
action  should  not  have  been  taken  without  consulting  the        ^ 
people;  also  that  the  use  of  the  blackboard  for  general  in- 
structions was  not  objected  to,  but  the  entry  of  the  personal 
numbers  or  names  was  intended  as  public  discrimination  be- 
tween the  men  and  aroused  a  just  resentment  as  an  unwar- 
ranted form  of  discipline.     The  company  maintained  that 
the  board  was  used  simply  to  promote  better  efficiency  among 
the  pressers  by   distinguishing    between    good    and    bad 
pressers,    and    that    it    was    effective,    as    the    notation 
"  No.     2423     had     8     coats     returned     yesterday,"     had 
since  led  to  his  doing  better  work.    After  hearing  the 
evidence  the  Trade  Board  held  that  "  the  use  of  the  black-1 
board  in  giving  publicity  to  names  or  numbers  of  pressers 
who  fell  off  in  quality  or  production  is  objectionable  as 
method  of  discipline.  The  element  of  publicity  in  such  a  mat- 
ter is  what  makes  such  a  practice  obnoxious,  and  undoubt- 
edly led  to  the  shock  and  resentment  described  by  the  wit- 
nesses of  the  people.    *    *    *    The  use  of  the  blackboard  in| 
this  respect  is  a  device  of  questionable  usefulness  and  apt  to 
arouse  much  more  opposition  and  less  co-operation  in  doing 


204     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  work."    Its  use  was  accordingly  ordered  to  be  confined 
to  general  instructions. 

LABOR  CONDITIONS 

The  point  at  which  the  freedom  of  management  to  act  at 
its  own  discretion  gives  way  to  the  more  democratic  pro- 
cedure of  collective  bargaining  is  the  point  where  established 
or  customary  labor  conditions  and  standards  are  involved. 
Management  is  free  to  organize  and  reorganize  the  processes 
of  production  up  to  the  point  where  these  touch  the  interests 
of  the  workers  in  the  form  of  change  in  their  wages,  hours, 
or  other  conditions  of  work.  Such  change  can  be  effected 
only  with  the  approval  of  the  union,  subject  to  appeal  to  the 
Trade  Board.  The  issue  is  brought  out  in  respect  to  work- 
ing hours,  or  more  strictly,  the  starting  hour,  in  the  follow- 
ing case^  decided  by  the  Trade  Board.  The  firm  in  this 
case  agreed  with  its  cutters  to  change  to  a  10-hour  schedule, 
beginning  work  at  7 :30  A.  M.  instead  of  8 :00,  and  coimting 
the  first  half -hour  of  each  day  as  overtime.  The  union  ob- 
jected to  this  arrangement,  claiming  that  they  could  not 
permit  to  have  them  put  in  any  overtime  before  8  A-  M., 
that  being  the  starting  hour  agreed  upon.  The  firm  con- 
tended that  it  was  within  the  functions  of  the  management 
to  decide  as  to  what  constitutes  a  proper  starting  hour,  and 
requested  the  Trade  Board  to  determine: 

"  1.  Whether  or  not  the  management  may  order  operations 
begun  at  its  discretion,  provided  the  hour  is  reasonable. 

"  2.  What  constitutes  a  reasonable  starting  hour  in  the 
morning." 

At  the  hearing  before  the  Trade  Board  the  union  made 
no  objection  to  the  starting  hour  being  set  at  7:30,  if  this 
was  to  be  the  regular  arrangement  and  consistently  applied 
by  the  firm.  It  was  also  agreed  between  the  parties  that 
there  should  be  no  overtime  at  the  beginning  of  the  day*s 
work.  There  remained,  then,  only  the  first  question,  as  to 
the  authority  of  the  management  to  order  a  change  in  the 
starting  hour.     The  union  maintained  that  such  a  matter 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        205 

must  be  settled  by  collective  bargaining.  In  deciding  this 
issue,  Professor  Millis,  as  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board, 
ruled  as  follows: 

"  The  question  of  principle  raised  in  this  case  is  an  important 
one.  It  is  a  question  as  to  how  far  the  employer  may  exercise 
his  discretion  subject  only  to  complaint  of  unreasonable  exer- 
cise, and  as  to  how  far  matters  are  to  be  controlled  by  collective 
bargaining  or,  that  failing,  by  decision  of  an  impartial  tribunal.  : 

The  Trade  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  needless  restrictions         i'lXA 
upon   management   must   be   avoided,   but   that   if   the   agree-   jip" 
ment  is  to  operate  efficiently,  what  may  be  called  *  Labor  Con-i  0^^"^ 

ditions  '  must  be  determined  by  collective  bargaining.     Thusi   ni^A 
the  employer  may  make  a  change  in  his  equipment  without  agree-  \j 

ment,  the  worker  having  a  right  to  expect  an  adjustment  if  the 
conditions  of  his  work  are  changed,  but  a  price  for  the  new 
work  must  be  decided  upon  by  collective  bargaining  before  a       ^     fA^y^  i 
worker  may  be  required  to  perform  it.     The  question  is  whe-  i,         J    cJ^  1/^ 
ther  the  starting  hour  is  a  *  question  of  management '  or  a  /^  (^\        -^         a 
*  labor  condition  '  to  such  an  extent  that  it  should  be  changed  ^   I    ■^    Ij       \. 
only  by  agreement,  or  in  the  event  of  failure  to  agree,  by  arbi-  '  t^  ^ J    \ 
tration.     The  Trade ^oard  holds  that  the  starting  hour  having      [^'>^  > 
been  at  8  o'clock  in  this  case,  it  should  not  have  been  changed 
by  executive  order  *     *     *  " 

In  matters  that  come  under  the  head  of  "  labor  conditions  " 
and  that  properly  call  for  collective  bargaining  and  agree- 
ment, the  obligation  to  confer  and  endeavor  to  agree  rests 
not  only  on  the  employer  but  also  on  the  union.  Collective 
bargaining  operates  as  a  check  upon  direct  action  of  either 
party.  In  such  a  matter  as  instituting  overtime  work,  the 
initiative  in  the  Chicago  market  has  customarily  lain  with 
the  management.  But  if  the  union  for  any  reason  objects 
to  overtime  being  worked,  it  has  recourse  first  to  conference 
and  then  to  the  Trade  Board.  In  a  case  of  this  character" 
a  firm  complained  of  a  deputy  for  prohibiting  overtime  work 
by  the  cutters.  The  firm  had  instructed  its  cutters  to  work  v 
overtime.  The  cutters  were  willing.  The  shop  chairman, 
however,  called  up  the  union  and  the  union  official  prohibited 
the  shop  chairman  from  working  overtime,  thus  counter- 
manding the  orders  of  the  firm.  The  firm  contended  before 
the  Trade  Board  that  this  action  of  the  deputy  tended  to 


J^> 


200     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

^  undermine  discipline;  that  the  question  of  overtime  work 
was  for  it  to  decide;  that  the  deputy  took  the  law  into  his 
y  own  hands  and  did  not  confer  when  he  thought  overtime 
1 .  '^  should  not  be  worked ;  and  that  he  produced  what  was  in  ef- 

fect a  stoppage.  The  deputy  gave  as  one  reason  for  his  ac- 
tion, the  feeling  that  some  cutters  should  not  work  overtime 
while  others  are  unemployed.  He  advanced  the  claim  of  the 
union  that  overtime  is  not  a  right,  but  a  concession  willingly 
made  by  it  in  the  busy  season  but  withheld  when  there  is  un- 
emplojnment.  Finally,  he  maintained  that  if  the  union  official 
issues  an  order  countermanding  an  order  issued  by  the  firm, 
the  firm  has  recourse  to  the  Trade  Board. 

In  passing  on  the  disputed  question  of  procedure  in  this 
case,  the  Trade  Board  held  that  "  past  practice  was  not  far 
from  right.  The  practice  has  been  for  the  firm  to  decide 
when  it  wants  overtime  work.  If  its  decision  is  unsatisfac- 
tory to  the  deputy,  he  should  not  issue  a  countermanding 
rder,  but  should  take  up  the  matter  in  conference  with  the 
labor  manager.  If  no  agreement  is  arrived  at  in  conference, 
the  matter  should  be  taken  to  the  impartial  machinery.  We 
must  not  have  order  and  countermanding  order.  Divergent 
interests  are  not  to  be  conserved  in  this  way." 

If  the  scope  of  collective  bargaining  is  to  be  co-extensive 
with  "  labor  conditions,"  it  must,  of  course,  include  the  whole 
question  of  wage  determination  and  adjustment;  for  this 
touches  most  closely  the  interests  of  every  worker.  In  our 
later  discussion  of  the  adjustment  of  piece  prices  and  speci- 
fications, it  will  be  made  evident  that  this  entire  field  is  one 
for  joint  control  by  management  and  workers'  organization. 
Hardly  a  step  can  be  taken  here  by  the  employer  without 
either  consultation  and  agreement  with  union  representatives 
or  the  reserved  right  of  the  workers  affected  to  appeal  to 
the  impartial  machinery  for  review  and  redress.  The  pro- 
cedure of  collective  bargaining  applies,  moreover,  to  in- 
creases in  wages  as  well  as  to  their  reduction.  This  is  for 
the  reason,  already  suggested,  that  the  interest  of  all  the 
workers  and  of  the  market  as  a  whole  must  be  consulted  if 
injustice  and  instability  are  to  be  avoided.    Individual  bar- 


(^o/^ 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        207 

gaining  may  solve  a  particular  employer's  problem  at  a  par- 
ticular time  with  reference  to  a  particular  worker  or  section.  ^ 
But  it  is  almost  certain  to  create  new  problems,  if  not  for 
him,  at  any  rate  for  other  employers  and  for  the  union,  that              i>      . 
are  not  so  readily  disposed  of.                                                       Vi)  ^^        ^ 

In  a  case  in  point®  the  union  filed  complaint  with  the  Trade  ,^^  ^  '^-.j^ 
Board  to  the  effect  that  the  foreman  in  a  certain  house  had     '      J\      ^1/ 
violated  both  the  agreement  and  the  Board  of  Arbitration  /  U'^J^ 
award  by  inducing  a  former  employee  to  return  to  the  firm    1  ^ .  ^ 
by  offering  to  pay  her  3  cents  for  an  operation  for  which  ^Jr 
the  established  price  was  2.4  cents.    The  union  requested  the 
Trade  Board  to  instruct  the  foreman  with  reference  to  his 
province.    Acting  upon  the  union's  request,  Chairman  Millis 
ruled,  in  part,  as  follows : 

"  When  this  foreman  bargained  to  advance  the  piece  rate 
from  2.4  to  3  cents,  he  acted  contrary  to  the  agreement,  for 
all  piece  rates  must  be  made^by  collective  bargaining.     Fore-  |  ^ 

men  have  no  power  to  change  piece  prices.  It  is  entirely  out  of  O  a  <^ 
their  province.  Moreover,  the  foreman's  action  was  in  viola-  '  ^ 
tion  of  the  Arbitrator's  award  (of  December,  1919),  for  the 
award  provides  that  approved  piece  rates  must  not  be  changed 
during  the  light  weight  season  except  upon  the  Trade  Board's 
recommendation  and  the  Arbitration  Board's  approval.  Fur- 
thermore, the  action  was  highly  objectionable  because  it  tends 
to  beget  discontent,  instability  in  the  market,  and  direct  action. 
These  the  manufacturers,  the  union,  and  the  impartial  ma- 
chinery have  been  trying  to  remove." 

The  same  principle  holds  for  increasing  the  wages  of  week 
workers.  Such  increases  are  to  be  effected  through  confer- 
ence with  the  union  representative  and  not  by  executive  au- 
thority. In  one  instance  involving  this  principle,^  the  union 
complained  to  the  Trade  Board  that  a  firm  had  given  in- 
creases voluntarily  to  certain  workers,  although  refusing  to 
admit  the  justice  of  complaints  presented  by  the  union  in 
behalf  of  other  workers  who  were  underpaid,  for  three  of 
whom  it  specifically  requested  increases.  The  firm  admitted 
having  raised  the  wage  of  one  worker  from  $27  to  $30  with- 
out request  from  the  worker  or  the  deputy.  This  worker 
was  said  by  the  union  to  have  boasted  of  the  fact  that  she 


208     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


^^ 


^< 


^ 


got  an  increase  without  asking  for  it  and  to  have  aggravated 
the  dissatisfaction  of  other  workers  whose  requests  for  in- 
creases had  been  denied.  The  union  stated  that  many  com- 
plaints had  been  taken  up  in  behalf  of  low-paid  week  workers 
but  that  practically  no  increases  had  been  granted  by  the 
Ay  firm;  and  the  deputy  found  it  highly  embarrassing  when  the 
firm  granted  increases  on  its  own  initiative.  The  Trade 
Board  reaffirmed  the  rule  of  collective  bargaining  to  govern 
such  cases  as  this  in  the  following  statement: 

"  *     *     *     The  firm  should  not  place  the  union  in  the  em- 
barrassing position  of  seeming  to  oppose  an  increase.     If  it  is 
felt  that  an  increase  is  called  for  it  should  be  taken  up  with 
J  the  deputy,  who  is  after  all  closest  to  the  workers  and  must 

^mJ'  answer  their  complaints.     If  the  workers  find  that  they  can  get 
'  ■    I  more  by  deaUng  individually  with  the  firm  than  by  laying  their 
%j/ complaints  before  their  shop  representatives  or  deputies,  effec- 
(r    Ltive  control — without  which  the  agreement  is  meaningless — will 
\  0  be  lost.     It  is  as  much  to  the  interest  of  the  firm  as  it  is  to  the 
interest  of  the  workers  to  see  to  it  that  the  procedure  laid  down 
in  the  agreement  for  the  handling  of  complaints  is  adhered  to 
strictly.     The  union  has  a  right  to  expect  that  the  agreement 
*  will  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to  maintain  and  strengthen  its 
]  organization  so  that  it  may  be  strong  enough  to  cooperate,  as 
/  contemplated  by  this  agreement,  and  to  command  the  respect 
'  of  the  employer.'  " 

The  Trade  Board  then  directed  the  firm  to  take  up  with  the 
union  for  further  consideration  the  complaints  of  the  above 
three  workers  cited  in  the  petition. 

A  situation  combining  some  of  the  features  of  both  of  the 
preceding  was  presented  to  the  Trade  Board  in  another  case' 
in  which  the  union  complained  that  the  firm  had  violated  the 
spirit  of  the  agreement  by  individual  bargaining,  refusing  to 
grant  an  increase  on  certain  work  when  the  union  deputy 
took  the  matter  up  with  the  labor  department,  and  later 
granting  an  increase  voluntarily  after  the  people  had  gone 
on  strike.  In  passing  judgment  on  the  firm's  action  in  this 
case,  the  impartial  chairman  stated: 

"  The  Trade  Board  has  found  it  necessary  on  several  occa- 
sions to  review  individual  adjustments  made  by  foremen  after 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        209 


authorized  representatives  of  the  workers  had  failed  to  secure 
redress.  In  each  case  the  Board  has  condemned  the  practice 
and  pointed  out  its  consequences.  For  the  most  part  the  ad- 
justments have  been  permitted  to  stand,  as  a  self-imposed 
penalty,  in  spite  of  the  danger  that  the  workers  might  be  en- 
couraged to  resort  to  direct  action  to  adjust  future  grievances. 
The  increase  granted  by  the  foreman  in  this  case  is  to  stand, 
of  course.  The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  would  state  very 
frankly,  moreover,  that  he  would  regard  action  of  this  sort  as 
sufficient  ground  for  discharge  if  repeated.  The  firm  cannot 
afford  to  have  in  its  employ  a  foreman  who  exercises  so  little 
judgment  on  issues  of  such  vital  importance.  The  workers 
complain  about  their  rates.  The  foreman  turns  a  deaf  ear. 
The  deputy  attempts  to  secure  an  adjustment.  The  foreman, 
will  not  consider  it.  The  workers  strike  and  the  foreman  pro- 
ceeds to  seek  them  out  and  offer  them  an  increase  to  come  back. 
What  respect  the  workers  must  have  for  orderly  procedure; 
what  confidence  in  their  deputy,  under  such  circumstances !  If, 
one  were  to  attempt  deliberately  to  destroy  the  agreement  and 
break  down  effective  control  by  the  organization,  it  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  find  a  more  effective  way  than  that  followed  by  the  fore- 
man in  this  case.  The  Board  hopes  that  the  organization  will 
be  at  pains  to  convince  the  workers  that  the  adjustment  is  to  ; 
stand  not  because  they  forced  it  by  direct  action,  but  as  a  j 
penalty  upon  the  firm  for  the  acts  of  its  foreman."  ' 

A  more  common  misuse  of  administrative  power  on  the 
part  of  management  than  the  increase  of  wages  by  executive 
action  or  individual  bargaining,  is  the  attempt  to  reduce  them, 
as  a  rule  indirectly,  without  the  consent  of  the  union.  Since 
the  wages  of  piece  workers  are  intimately  dependent  not 
only  on  the  quality,  but  also  on  the  nature  and  the  method  of 
work  required  of  them,  even  a  slight  change  introduced  in 
any  of  these  will  be  immediately  reflected  in  the  workers* 
earnings.  Changes  in  each  of  these  elements  of  the  work 
are  being  constantly  made.  The  decision  as  to  what  these 
changes  are  to  be  rests  logically  with  the  management,  since 
management  has  the  responsibility  for  styles,  sales,  and  pro- 
duction policy,  and  must  he  free  to  adopt  the  most  efficient 
means  for  carrying  out  the  policy.  But  the  putting  into 
effect  of  the  management's  decision  requires  the  consent  and 
co-operation  of  the  union.    The  specification  embodying  the 


210     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

exact  definition  of  the  task,  no  less  than  the  piece-work  rate 
corresponding  to  it,  is  a  matter  for  joint  negotiation  and 
agreement.  Neither  can  be  imposed  on  the  workers,  even 
provisionally,  by  the  management  acting  on  its  own  initiative. 
Nor,  once  established  by  collective  bargaining,  can  rates  or 
specifications  be  altered  by  administrative  action.  Changes 
do  not  become  effective  mitil  approved  by  the  joint  Rate 
Committee,  or,  on  appeal,  by  the  Trade  Board.  **  The  firm 
cannot  proceed  alone  "  in  these  matters. 

It  follows  from  these  premises  that  even  when  a  worker's 
operation  is  reduced,  the  management  is  not  free  to  reduce 
his  piece  rate  in  the  same  proportion  without  first  securing 
the  consent  of  the  worker's  representative  to  the  change. 
Even  when  the  proposed  reduction  in  the  operation  involves 
n^erely  the  withdrawal  of  a  differential  previously  established 
by  agreement  with  the  union,  such  a  reduction  may  not  be 
put  into  effect  without  again  being  authorized  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  both  parties.  In  an  early  decision  by  Mr.  Wil- 
liams,** dealing  with  this  question,  it  was  ordered  that  "  Any 
claims  for  such  withdrawal  should  take  the  course  of  any 
other  change  of  price  and  be  acted  on  by  the  price  com- 
mittee before  it  can  take  effect."  And  the  principle  under- 
lying this  procedure  was  enunciated  by  him  in  the  following 
much-quoted  language: 

"  Automatic  reductions,  or  reductions  by  direct  or  executive 
action,  are  to  be  discouraged  as  creating  a  sense  of  injustice  and 
wrong.  Reductions  should  not  first  be  made  by  the  company 
and  the  onus  of  proving  them  wrong  placed  upon  the  workers. 
It  is  clearly  the  intention  of  the  agreement  that  no  change  of 
price  or  change  of  work  equivalent  to  a  change  of  price  should 
^  ^      be  made  without  being  submitted  to  the  price  committee." 

Kf^^\(f^^  j^'^^^  restriction  on  the  powers  of  management  here  laid 
l^  \^  ^j/r^own  is  dictated  not  by  any  desire  to  limit  the  employer*s 
o  y  ^^^\  ^J^iti^tive  in  matters  of  economy  or  of  technical  improvement. 
\  y(y  ^  Rather  is  it  called  for  by  the  necessity  of  safeguarding 
against  impairing  the  wage  and  working  standards  of  the 
people  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  welfare  of  the  organization 
on  the  other.     And  this  is  possible   only   by   giving   them 


f 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        211 

through  their  representatives  a  check  upon  the  action  of 
management  at  every  point  where  changes  in  price  or  in 
work  are  to  be  introduced.  This  balanced  adjustment  be- 
tween administrative  initiative  and  the  protection  of  the 
workers'  legitimate  interests  is  the  aim  and  purpose  of  most 
of  the  joint  machinery,  of  which  the  price  committee  is  an 
important  part.  In  the  course  of  the  same  decision  from 
which  we  have  already  quoted,*  Mr.  Williams  stated  this 
relationship  as  follows: 

"  The  company  should  be  free  to  institute  improvement  in 
methods  of  operation;  but  if  the  proposed  changes  are  suffi- 
ciently important  to  impair  the  earning  power  of  the  worker, 
or  to  give  rise  to  a  reasonable  belief  that  it  will  cause  such 
impairment,  the  change  should  not  be  instituted  by  executive 
order  but  through  the  price  committee;  and  if  such  change 
requires  a  period  of  trial  before  it  can  be  tested  and  approved, 
the  workers  shall  be  paid  by  the  hour  during  such  period  of 
trial    ♦    •    *  " 

The  freedom  of  the  management  to  introduce  changes, 
however  small  in  its  own  judgment,  is  sure  to  come  in  con- 
flict sooner  or  later  with  the  instinctive  conservatism  of  the 
workers,  who  see  in  every  change  in  conditions  the  possibility 
of  an  attack  on  their  existing  standards.  The  conflict  is 
avoided  where  the  workers*  interests  are  safeguarded  through 
having  the  change  introduced  on  terms  agreed  upon  between 
the  representatives  of  both  parties.  But  employers  fre- 
quently consider  it  to  their  own  interest  to  introduce  changes 
by  direct  action  or  executive  order.  This  is  so,  first,  because 
it  seems  a  more  expeditious  method,  and  secondly,  because 
it  enables  them  to  reap  the  full  advantage  of  the  innovation. 
Accordingly,  the  clash  of  interests  occurs  at  the  point  where 
the  employer  proceeds  to  make  practical  use  of  his  freedom 
of  administrative  initiative.  In  view  of  the  relative  waste- 
fulness of  hour  work,  he  is  under  inducement  to  introduce 
minor  changes  in  work  without  prior  reference  of  the  matter 
to  the  committee?  or  to  the  Trade  Board.  The  result  is 
usually  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  worker  and  probably 
of  his  shop  representative.     This  conflict  of  authority  fre- 


212     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

quently  leads  to  the  discharge  of  the  insubordinate  worker 
and  not  rarely,  also,  to  a  stoppage  of  other  workers  in  pro- 
test. Direct  action  on  the  part  of  the  management  thus 
defeats  its  own  ends. 

CONFLICT  OF  AUTHORITY 

The  problem  and  the  way  out  are  presented  concretely 
in  the  case  of  S,  a  "  cleaner,"  who  had  been  discharged  for 
demanding  hour  work  when  a  shght  change  was  introduced 
in  her  operation.  She  had  been  supported  in  her  demand  by 
the  shop  chairman.  The  Trade  Board  ordered  her  reinstate- 
ment. The  company  appealed  the  case,  and  Chairman  Wil- 
liams of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  made  the  following 
ruling^*^  which,  on  account  of  its  far-reaching  import,  is  here 
quoted  at  length: 

**  In  this  case  the  old  question  of  how  to  avoid  friction  over 
the  introduction  of  small  differentials  again  arises.  The  com- 
pany appeals  to  the  board  to  give  a  '  decision  which  will  be 
a  plain  guide  as  to  the  right  course  of  action  when  difficult 
questions  arise.'  It  especially  wants  a  ruhng  that  will  pre- 
vent conflicts  of  authority  between  foreman  and  chairman,  and 
also  avoid  the  wasteful  alternative  of  hour  work. 

"  The  special  problem  set  for  the  chairman  in  this  appeal  is 
this :  How  can  sufficient  power  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  fore- 
man to  permit  him  to  make  needed  changes  in  operations,  while 
at  the  same  time  safeguarding  that  power  so  that  it  can  not  be 
used  to  force  disadvantageous  changes  on  the  workers? 

"  Any  answer  the  chairman  may  make  to  this  question  must 
be  consistent  with  decisions  previously  made,  which  have  become 
part  of  the  working  structure  of  the  agreement.  Among  them 
is  this :  '  Reductions  should  not  first  be  made  by  the  company 
and  the  onus  of  proving  them  wrong  placed  upon  the  workers. 
It  is  clearly  the  intention  of  the  agreement  that  no  change  of 
price  or  change  of  work  equivalent  to  a  change  of  price  should 
be  made  without  being  submitted  to  the  price  committee.' 

"  Let  us  ask  what  is  the  occasion  of  the  friction  and  misun- 
derstanding for  which  a  remedy  is  asked  in  this  type  of  cases. 
It  is  usually  a  case  where  the  foreman  seeks  to  introduce  a 
change  of  work  which  he  deems  trifling  and  negligible,  but  which 
the  workers  think  is  sufficiently  important  to  require  considera- 
tion. Our  problem  is,  therefore,  how  to  proceed  when  differ- 
ences of  this  kind  arise. 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        218 

"  The  company's  solution  is  that  in  the  interest  of  efficient 
administration  the  foreman's  power  to  institute  the  change 
should  be  unrestricted,  subject  to  correction  later  if  error  is 
found.  In  reply  to  this  the  union  contends  that  to  leave  this 
unchallengeable  power  in  the  hands  of  the  foreman  would  deprive 
the  workers  of  the  protection  assured  them  by  the  agreement. 
Also,  it  would  upset  the  entire  practice  under  which  we  are 
working  and  to  which  the  people  have  become  educated,  and 
would  be  Ukely  to  create  far  more  friction  than  it  would  remove. 

"  After  due  consideration,  the  chairman  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  worker  has  an  interest  in  this  question  of  the  initiation 
of  changes  of  which  he  cannot  be  properly  deprived  and  which 
it  would  be  difficult  to  adequately  safeguard  by  subsequent 
adjudication.  He  cannot  therefore  agree  to  a  solution  of  the 
difficulty  by  giving  the  foreman  a  free  hand  in  its  adjustment. 

"  Is  there,  then,  no  remedy.''  Must  we  continue  to  endure 
the  friction  and  waste  complained  of.'* 

"  Clearly,  there  can  be  no  remedy  that  ignores  the  claim  of 
the  workers.  There  is  no  authoritative  short  cut  by  which  a 
dispute  can  be  settled  by  the  dictum  of  the  foreman.  With  this 
fact  in  mind,  the  chairman  has  thought  over  the  question  with 
the  hope  of  reaching  a  workable  solution.  He  now  submits  the 
following : 

"  Whenever  a  change  needs  to  be  introduced,  which  is  likely 
to  give  rise  to  objection  or  dispute,  the  foreman  should  take 
steps  to  have  it  authorized  by  the  representative  of  the  workers, 
who  should  at  the  same  time  see  that  their  interests  in  the  matter 
are  safeguarded.  The  union  member  of  the  price  committee 
should  attend  to  the  call  as  promptly  as  practicable.  After 
hearing  the  nature  of  the  change  proposed,  he  should,  if  con- 
sistent with  justice  and  just  claim  of  the  workers,  direct  the 
section  to  proceed  with  the  work  pending  the  formal  disposition 
of  the  matter  by  the  price  committee.  The  chairman  recom- 
mends that  hour  work  be  not  insisted  on  except  where  neces- 
sary to  get  work  done  and  there  is  no  other  practicable  way 
to  compensate  the  worker.  It  is  hoped  that  a  friendly  con- 
ference between  representatives  of  the  company  and  of  the 
union  would  result  in  the  adjustment  of  disputed  points  and  in 
the  prevention  of  delay,  of  friction,  and  of  needless  hour  work. 

"  It  is  obvious  that  such  a  proceeding  as  is  here  recommended 
would  be  void  of  useful  results  unless  both  parties  are  animated 
by  the  desire  to  be  mutually  helpful  and  are  free  from  petty 
arrogance  and  pride  of  power.  The  chairman  does  not  impose 
it  as  a  new  interpretation,  or  a  new  order,  but  as  a  helpful  sug- 
gestion of  how  to  use  the  powers  already  implicit  in  the  agree- 


214     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ment  and  in  daily  use  in  other  directions,  to  solve  the  vexatious 
questions  attending  the  adjustment  of  small  variations  and 
changes  of  work. 

"  The  decision  of  the  Trade  Board  in  regard  to  the  reinstate- 
ment of  S  is  affirmed." 

The  issue  involved  in  a  change  of  work  introduced  by 
order  of  the  management  may  be  more  than  a  question  of 
price  on  the  new  work.  It  may  be  the  customary  right  of 
the  worker  to  his  operation,  his  vested  interest  in  the  work 
itself.  Ordinarily,  the  employer  is  the  best  judge  of  the 
value  from  the  standpoint  of  efficiency  of  a  proposed  change 
in  the  method  of  organization  of  work  in  his  factory.  But 
the  standpoint  of  efficiency  alone  cannot  be  decisive  if  it 
confficts  seriously  with  the  interests  of  the  workers  as  guar- 
anteed or  implied  in  the  agreement.  For  then  the  innova- 
tion is  certain  to  create  enough  discontent  and  resentment  on 
the  workers'  part  to  make  of  it — apart  from  its  injustice — 
a  wasteful  rather  than  an  economical  step.  It  is,  therefore, 
necessary  that  the  union  should  exercise  a  check  upon  the 
power  of  management  to  introduce  changes  in  work  by  ex- 
ecutive action.  This  applies  particularly  to  such  changes  in 
work  as  menace  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  workers,  over 
and  above  the  immediate  question  of  pay.  To  provide  this 
protection  to  the  workers  against  unfavorable  changes  in 
the  character  and  conditions  of  their  work,  they  have  the 
right  of  having  disputed  changes  in  specifications  as  well 
as  in  prices  passed  upon  not  only  by  the  union  representative 
on  the  price  committee  but  in  case  of  disagreement  also 
by  the  impartial  machinery.  The  agreement  provides,  as 
follows,  when  dissatisfaction  arises  over  change  of  price 
or  working  conditions :  "  It  is  believed  that  the  agreement 
provides  a  remedy  for  every  such  grievance  that  can  arise, 
and  all  complainants  are  urged  and  expected  to  present 
their  cases  to  the  proper  officials  and  await  an  adjustment 
*  *  *."  One  type  of  problem  to  which  this  general  pro- 
vision refers  is  exemplified  and  constructively  dealt  with  in 
the  following  case,^^  decided  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in 
June,  1915: 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        215 

The  company  in  this  case  decided  to  combine  the  work  of 
sewing  collar  pieces  with  the  work  of  armhole  basting,  thus 
uniting  the  work  of  two  sections,  and  asked  the  Trade  Board 
to  fix  a  price  for  the  joint  operation.  The  Trade  Board 
held  that  the  agreement  did  not  require  the  armhole  basters 
to  do  the  work  of  sewing  collar  pieces.  The  company  ap- 
pealed on  the  ground  that  the  board  had  exceeded  its  author- 
ity in  limiting  the  power  of  the  company  to  either  combine 
or  subdivide  sections,  and  asked  for  an  order  requiring  the 
board  to  fix  a  price  for  the  work  described  in  the  speci- 
fications. 

The  union  replied  that  the  work  of  these  two  sections  was 
in  several  ways  incompatible;  that  it  would  work  hardship 
on  the  armhole  basters,  compensation  for  whom  could  not  be 
equitably  calculated;  and  that  while  it  irremediably  injured 
the  armhole  basters,  the  joining  of  the  two  sections  would 
give  no  appreciable  advantage  to  the  company,  either  in 
economy  or  efficiency. 

Chairman  Williams  thereupon  recorded  his  opinion,  as 
follows : 

"  The  real  issue  involved  in  this  case  is  not  so  much  the  obli- 
gation of  the  Trade  Board  to  fix  a  price  on  any  given  specifica- 
tions, as  the  question  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  com- 
pany may  exercise  its  right  of  uniting  sections.  This  right, 
like  others  not  specifically  limited  by  the  agreement,  inheres  in 
the  company ;  but  it  is  to  be  exercised  in  such  manner  as  not  to 
infringe  on  the  rights  of  the  workers.  If  they  consider  their 
rights  invaded  they  may  file  their  complaint  in  the  regular  man- 
ner and  the  case  shall  be  adjudicated  in  the  usual  way    *     *     * 

"  The  company  takes  the  position  that  it  is  obligatory  on 
the  Trade  Board  to  fix  a  price  on  any  specifications  submitted, 
and  that  it  is  debarred  from  passing  on  the  rightfulness  of  an}' 
such  specifications  by  virtue  of  Section  D  of  the  general  rules 
which  is  as  follows :  *  Whenever  a  change  of  price  is  contem- 
plated the  specifications  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Trade  Boart', 
and  the  specifications  with  the  prices  fixed  therefor  shall  be 
certified  to  the  firm  by  the  chairman  of  the  board.' 

"The  chairman  (of  the  Board  of  Arbitration)  is  of  the 
opinion  that  it  was  intended  in  this  clause  to  confer  the  power 
on  the  Trade  Board  to  fix  and  certify  prices  whenever  a  '  change 
of  price  '  was  contemplated ;  but  that  it  was  not  intended  to 


216     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

deny  the  power  of  the  board  to  pass  on  the  rightfulness  of 

specifications  if  it  appeared  that  the  specifications  worked  such 

injury  to  the  workers  that  it  could  not  be  remedied  in  making 

the  price. 

.        **  The  chairman  is  mindful  of  the  necessity  of  giving  the  com- 

j  pany  the  widest  possible  freedom  of  administration  consistent 

C,  with  the  rights  of  the  workers  as  provided  for  by  the  spirit  and 

'  purpose  of  the  agreement,  and  due  care  should  be  exercised  not 

to  hamper  that  freedom  unless  it  is  clearly  necessary  to  do  so 

to  protect  the  rights  of  the  workers. 

"  The  eifort  to  sharply  demarcate  the  rights  and  powers  of 
the  parties  is  always  diflScult,  and  usually  accompanied  by  strain 
and  tension  and  is  provocative  of  ill-will  and  bad  feeling. 
Whenever  a  change  is  sought  to  be  introduced  by  the  company 
calculated  to  raise  the  question  of  rights  and  powers,  the  chair- 
man strongly  urges  that  the  matter  be  discussed  in  advance 
with  representatives  of  the  union,  and,  if  necessary,  with  the 
chairman  of  the  Trade  Board,  to  the  end  that  an  agreement 
be  arrived  at  and  the  strain  and  bitterness  caused  by  a  conflict 
about  authority  be  avoided. 

"  In  the  appraisal  of  the  facts  in  the  present  case,  the  chair- 
man sees  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Trade  Board  has  erred, 
and  its  decision  with  respect  to  the  disposition  of  the  case  under 
consideration  stands     *     *     *  " 

The  rights  and  powers  of  management  relating  to  the 
introduction  by  executive  order  of  changes  in  work  are,  in 
practice,  narrowly  limited.  They  are  limited  not  only  by  the 
demonstrable  effect  of  such  changes  upon  the  immediate 
earning  power  of  the  workers  concerned.  They  are  limited 
also  by  the  psychological  effect  upon  these  workers  as  mani- 
fested in  dissatisfaction  or  resentment  on  their  part  against 
the  change.  Thus,  where  the  people  are  on  a  week-work 
basis  and  therefore  not  at  all  affected  in  their  present  earn- 
ings by  the  innovation  in  their  work,  they  may  nevertheless 
offer  strenuous  resistance  to  a  technical  improvement  whose 
future  effect  on  unemployment  they  fear.  This  fear  tends 
to  be  excited  by  any  change  in  the  usages  or  customary 
methods  of  work,  and  it  can  only  be  allayed  by  such  assur- 
ances against  eventual  injury  to  their  interests  as  the  union 
may  be  in  a  position  to  give  to  its  members.  The  principle 
of  joint  procedure,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  established 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        217 

by  Mr.  Williams  for  situations  involving  resistance  of 
workers  to  administrative  changes  on  grounds  of  impairment 
of  earnings.  In  the  following  decision^^  by  Mr.  Tufts  a 
similar  principle  was  recommended  for  meeting  the  issue  of 
executive  freedom  of  management  where  other  interests  of 
workers  are  involved. 

The  case  turned  on  the  question  as  to  the  right  of  the 
firm  to  issue  executive  orders,  changing  certain  methods  of 
management,  or  usages,  which  were  held  by  the  people  to 
be  established  as  shop  usages  or  standards.  The  particular 
instance  before  the  Trade  Board  had  been  the  case  of  a  man 
who  had  refused  to  obey  an  executive  order  by  which  the 
height  of  the  lay  in  the  case  of  felt  in  the  trimming  room  may 
be  in  certain  cases  one  hundred  high  instead  of  ninety.  The 
firm  contended  that  irrespective  of  the  merits  of  the  par- 
ticular order  in  question,  the  general  principle  is  funda- 
mental, namely,  that  the  firm  has  the  right  to  give  an  ex- 
ecutive order  which  is  not  in  violation  of  the  agreement  and 
that  complaint  of  such  order  should  be  brought  before  the 
Trade  Board  in  the  method  provided.  The  union  contended 
that  the  method  of  effecting  changes  in  established  usages 
by  executive  order  is  calculated  to  produce  friction  and 
unnecessary  irritation  and  that  it  would  be  a  better  method 
to  take  up  such  matters  in  advance  with  the  representative  of 
the  union. 

The  Board  of  Arbitration,  to  whom  the  Trade  Board  re- 
ferred the  case,  found  that 

"  An  earlier  ruling  laid  down  a  principle  for  changes  which 
aflFect  the  earning  power  of  the  worker,  in  which  it  used  the        '^,    !j 
following  language :     '  The  company  should  be  free  to  institute, ;       /  J^ 
improvement  in  methods   of   operation;   but   if   the   proposed!     t*./ 
changes  are  sufficiently  important  to  impair  the  earning  power 
of  the  worker,  or  to  give  rise  to  a  reasonable  belief  that  it  will 
cause  such  impairment,  the  change  should  not  be  instituted  by 
executive  order,  but  through  the  price  committee.'     The  present 
case  as  to  the  height  of  the  lay  does  not  seem  to  fall  under 
this  ruling  because  the  trimmers  are  on  the  week  work  plan. 
Nevertheless  the  Board  believes  that  in  cases  where  there  is  no 
emergency    requiring   immediate   action,    and   where    there   is 


218     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


serious  interference  with  established  standards,  it  would  be  de- 
sirable to  proceed  through  expert  commissions  on  which  both 
sides  are  represented.  Such  commissions  are  already  in  exist- 
ence in  the  price  committee  and  the  cutters'  commission.  The 
Board  believes  that  it  would  be  well  to  experiment  with  other 
similarly  constituted  bodies.  The  Board  will  not  proceed  fur- 
ther than  to  advise  the  Trade  Board  to  appoint  a  commission 
to  investigate  the  problem.  After  experimentation  with  expert 
commissions  and  with  other  methods  which  the  company  has 
under  consideration,  it  may  be  possible  to  give  a  decision  which 
shall  be  more  general  in  character." 

The  criteria  set  up  by  the  decision  for  determining  in  a 
given  situation  whether  or  not  management  may  exercise  its 
administrative  powers  to  introduce  a  technical  improvement, 
are,  first,  the  existence  of  an  emergency,  and,  secondly,  the 
maintenance  of  established  standards.  Under  these  condi- 
tions only,  management  may  proceed  to  inaugurate  the 
change,  leaving  the  workers  free  to  resort  to  the  impartial 
machinery  if  they  feel  their  interests  jeopardized. 

As  a  rule,  however,  changes  are  of  such  a  nature  that  with 
a  spirit  of  forbearance  on  both  sides,  their  application  can 
be  effected  without  injury  to  any  interest.  A  situation 
exemplifying  the  need  of  mutual  accommodation  in  these 
matters  is  presented  in  the  case^^  of  four  finishers  discharged 
for  refusal  to  call  for  supplementary  coupons  on  cuffs  on 
overcoats.  The  deputy  had  refused  to  approve  the  use  of  the 
coupons  and  had  asked  that  the  matter  be  put  over  for  con- 
sideration by  the  price  committee  or  the  Trade  Board,  neither 
of  which  would  be  available  for  a  couple  of  days.  The  chair- 
man of  the  Trade  Board  ordered  the  reinstatement  of  the 
workers  with  pay  for  lost  time.  The  company  appealed  the 
case  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  and  Chairman  Millis  ruled 
as  follows: 

"  Cases  of  this  kind  should  be  and  can  easily  be  avoided  by 
proper  cooperation.  The  loss  to  workers  from  the  use  of  the 
coupons  would  be  negligible  *  ♦  *  The  deputy  could  well 
have  been  guided  by  Mr.  Williams'  advice  in  case  293,  where  he 
said :  *  The  chairman  is  mindful  of  the  necessity  of  giving  the 
company  the  widest  possible  freedom  of  administration,  etc' 
If,  however,  the  deputy  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  use  of  the 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        219 


coupons  would  involve  the  workers  in  a  material  loss,  he  could 
well  have  cooperated  in  the  absence  of  the  company's  price  man 
and  the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board,  by  permitting  the  use 
of  the  coupons  and  then  asking  for  a  revision  of  price,  this  to  bt 
retroactive. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  there  was  no  emergency  which  would 
call  for  such  action  as  the  company  took.  A  similar  matter 
had  been  up  before  and  the  coupons  were  not  used  after  com- 
plaint was  made  by  the  deputy.  The  deputy  complained  in 
this  case  and  the  matter  could  easily  have  awaited  considera- 
tion by  the  Trade  Board  as  suggested  in  case  364*  (*  Whenever 
a  change  needs  to  be  introduced  which  is  likely  to  give  rise  to 
objection  or  dispute,  etc'  see  p.  207).  There  was  no  need 
to  proceed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  cause  workers  to  refuse  to 
obey  orders,  as  they  certainly  would  after  they  knew  the  deputy 
had  objected  to  what  it  was  proposed  to  do    *    *    *  " 

And  the  chairman  ordered  that  the  company  should  pay 
for  half  the  time  lost  by  the  workers. 

Any  change  in  work  that  involves  no  irremediable  injury 
to  the  worker's  interests  is  expected  to  be  accepted  by  him 
pending  an  adjustment  of  price  by  the  committee.  To  quote 
again  from  a  section  of  the  agreement  already  referred  to, 
"  All  complainants  are  urged  and  expected  to  present  their 
cases  to  the  proper  officials  and  await  an  adjustment.  If 
anyone  refuses  to  do  this,  and,  instead,  takes  the  law  in  his 
own  hands,  by  inciting  a  stoppage  or  otherwise  foments  dis- 
satisfaction or  rebellion,  he  shall,  if  convicted,  be  adjudged 
guilty  of  disloyalty  to  the  agreement  and  be  subject  to  dis- 
cipline by  the  Trade  Board."  This  procedure  represents  the 
obligation  of  the  worker  corresponding  to  his  right  to  chal- 
lenge the  management's  use  of  its  administrative  power  in 
introducing  changes  in  work.  A  case^*  partially  illustrating 
the  principle  is  the  following : 

A  finisher  was  discharged  for  refusing  to  sew  on  a  hanger 
to  a  coat  after  the  coat  had  been  cleaned.  The  circumstances 
of  the  case  were  these :  A  few  coats  had  come  through  with- 
out hangers  and  labels  and  had  been  taken  care  of  by  the 
finishers  without  objection.  But  by  some  oversight  an  un- 
usual number  came  that  week  and  the  matter  became  at  once 
of  some  significance  to  the  finishers  as  the  increase  in  the 


220     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


number  of  garments  without  hangers  naturally  increased  the 
work  of  the  finishers.  The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board 
held  that  *'  Under  the  circumstances  the  girl  should  have  con- 
tinued to  do  the  work  as  formerly  and  brought  complaint  for 
additional  work  by  reason  of  the  disproportionate  increase  of 
garments  with  shortages  of  hangers  or  labels."  And  the 
Board  directed  the  reinstatement  of  the  girl  without  back 
pay. 

The  interests  immediately  at  stake  whenever  a  change  is 
introduced  are  two.  On  one  hand,  there  is  the  employer's 
interest  in  making  improvements  with  the  least  possible  fric- 
tion or  interruption  in  production,  and  over  against  it  is  the 
worker's  interest  in  maintaining  his  wage  standards  and  other 
rights  against  infringement.  The  task  of  the  joint  machin- 
ery, price  committee  and  Trade  Board,  is  to  conserve  both  of 
^  these  interests.  In  many  trivial  changes,  at  least,  no  ir- 
"  reparable  harm  accrues  to  the  worker  by  accepting  them  pro- 
visionally or  under  protest  until  his  claim  can  be  adjusted. 
For  this  reason  the  Trade  Board  has  ruled^*^  that  in  case  of 
dispute  as  to  whether  there  is  change  of  work  of  importance, 
the  worker  should  do  the  work  and  bring  complaint  for  reim- 
bursement. In  such  cases  the  management  seems  to  be  the 
judge  of  the  dispute,  subject  to  review  and  reversal  by  the 
Trade  Board. 

When  a  change  of  work  is  occasioned  by  a  defect  in  the 
'  Ai  material  for  which  the  management  is  responsible,  the  worker 
is  not  under  the  same  obligation  to  proceed  with  the  work 
pending  an  adjustment.  Such  change  in  work,  not  being 
■^  .  V^\  instituted  in  the  interest  of  efficiency  or  technical  improve- 
//'i^  ment,  does  not  fall  within  the  legitimate  scope  of  the  admin- 
W  istrative  powers  of  management.  Nevertheless,  this  does  not 
r  u  V   /f  mean  that  the  agreement  sanctions  stoppages  or  any  inter- 

ruptions of  work  in  such  cases.  The  rights  and  duties  of  the 
parties  in  a  situation  of  this  sort  are  illustrated  by  the  dis- 
position reached  in  the  following  case^°:  The  question  at 
issue  was  whether  or  not  the  shop  trimmers  in  a  certain  house 
could  be  required  to  cut  imperfectly  perforated  coupon 
sheets  or  whether  the  company  must  make  separations  in  such 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        221 

cases  just  as  it  cares  for  other  defects  and  shortages.  The 
Trade  Board,  reinstating  one  of  the  trimmers  suspended  for 
insubordination,  ruled  as  follows  on  the  question:  "  The 
trimmers  were  not  required  by  specification  or  by  practice  to 
use  their  shears  in  separating  the  sections  of  the  coupon 
cards.  It  is  admitted  that  some  of  the  cards  were  not  prop- 
erly perforated.  Under  the  circimistances,  the  trimmers 
seem  to  have  followed  the  usual  procedure  where  defective 
work  or  shortages  appear.  They  referred  the  defect  to  the 
examiner,  as  they  would  any  other  defect  or  shortage.  He 
should  have  taken  care  of  these  defective  cards." 

The  company  appealed  from  this  ruling  of  the  Trade 
Board,  setting  forth  its  position,  in  part,  as  follows :  *'  The 
company  concedes  the  right  of  any  employe  to  make  com- 
plaint according  to  the  rules  of  procedure  and  to  be  heard 
by  the  Trade  Board  in  case  he  is  not  satisfied  with  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  labor  department  *  *  *."  The  chairman  of 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  upholding  the  decision  of  the 
Trade  Board,  refused  to  lay  down  any  general  rule  of  pro- 
cedure for  cases  of  this  type,  but  dealt  with  the  particular 
problem  before  him.  "  If  the  trimmers  followed  the  usual 
practice  of  referring  defective  work  and  shortages  to  the 
examiner,  and  if  the  coupon  sheets  were  unusually  bad,  both 
of  which  were  established  as  facts  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Trade  Board,  the  Chairman  finds  no  fault  with  the  ruling 
from  which  appeal  is  taken.  He  makes  the  observation  that 
it  is  undesirable  to  handle  matters  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
Trade  Board  litigation  necessary.  If  there  was  dispute  as 
to  what  the  trimmers  were  required  to  do,  it  could  have  been 
placed  before  the  price  committee  for  immediate  decision. 
The  holding  up  of  the  work  or  the  placing  of  the  trimmers  on 
hour  work  could  have  been  avoided  by  having  someone  do 
the  cutting  required  on  the  improperly  perforated  coupons." 

The  right  of  the  workers  to  request  differentials  in  price 
with  changes  in  their  work,  however  slight,  is  in  practice  un- 
limited. In  the  case  cited  below  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
limit  it  was  made  by  an  employer.  In  this  case^^,  the  Trade 
Board  ruled  that  a  differential  requested  by  the  union  in 


222     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

behalf  of  certain  sleeve  makers  was  warranted  by  the  diffi- 
culty of  handhng  the  shady  goods,  and  referred  the  pricing 
of  such  a  diff ef ential  to  the  members  of  the  rate-making  com- 
mittee. The  case  was  appealed  by  the  company,  and  the 
chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  entered  the  following 
ruling ; 

"  The  essential  principle  involved  in  these  *  *  *  cases  is 
*  *  *  in  effect  an  assertion  on  the  part  of  the  company  that 
trifling  variations  in  operation  are  made  the  ground  for  asking 
that  differentials  be  allowed,  causing  an  excessive  draft  on  the 
time  of  the  price  committee,  increasing  the  amount  of  hour  work 
unnecessarily,  and  interfering  with  the  free  flow  of  work  through 
the  sections.  As  a  remedy,  it  suggests  that  a  minimum  Hne 
of  variation  be  established,  below  which  no  claim  for  differen- 
tials shall  be  entertained. 

"  The  union  contends  that  no  such  frequency  of  claims  for 
differentials  exists  as  is  represented  by  the  company;  that  the 
total  number  of  such  cases  in  the  past  year  can  be  counted  on 
the  fingers  of  one  hand;  arid  that  it  is  not  possible  to  modify 
the  present  practice  without  depriving  the  union  of  safeguards 
necessary  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  workers. 

"  The  chairman  after  listening  to  a  long  and  searching  dis- 
cussion of  the  points  involved  in  this  controversy,  finds  himself 
unable  to  propose  any  remedy  that  he  feels  sure  would  be  an 
improvement  on  the  present  system.  Price  fixing  is  a  difficult 
art.  We  cannot  expect  it  to  be  100%  perfect,  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  never-ending  surprise  and  admiration  that  our  price 
committee  gets  such  excellent  results  as  it  does.  The  chairman, 
for  the  present,  prefers  to  leave  the  curing  of  any  avoidable 
defects  in  the  system  to  the  expert  skill  and  intelligence  of  the 
price  committee  rather  than  take  the  chance  of  making  it  woi'se 
by  any  crude  device  that  he  can  invent.  He  hopes  they  will 
continue  their  patient  and  efficient  cooperation,  that  they  will 
continue  their  efforts  to  reduce  hour  work  and  litigation  to  a 
minimum,  and  do  all  in  their  power  to  so  perfect  the  system  of 
price  making  that  all  reason  for  complaint  may  be  removed  and 
that  the  proper  interests  of  both  parties  may  be  safeguarded. 
He  believes  it  wisest,  however,  to  leave  the  power  to  bring  these 
ends  to  pass  where  the  Trade  Board  has  left  them,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Price  Committee  itself." 


Prof.  Harry  A.  Millis, 

Chairman,   Trade  Board,  Wholesale 

Clothiers,  etc.,  1919-1920 
Chairman,     Board     of    Arbitration, 

1920- 


James  Mullenbach, 
Chairman,  Trade 
Board,  Hart,  Schaff- 
ner  and  ]\Iarx,  1912- 


Prof.  James  H.  Tufts, 
Chairman,     Board     of 
1919-1920 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        223 

JOINT  PROCEDURE 

Changes  in  work  and  in  methods  of  work  vary  greatly  as 
to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  are  introduced  and  as 
to  the  manner  and  degree  in  which  they  affect  the  interests  of 
the  workers  concerned.  As  a  consequence,  it  is  not  practi- 
cable to  define  once  for  all  the  powers  of  management  and 
the  procedure  to  be  followed  in  giving  effect  to  such  changes. 
Hard  and  fast  rules  or  principles  laid  down  in  advance  can- 
not but  fail  to  meet  complex  situations  that  were  not  to  be 
foreseen.  For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  is  of  the  essence 
of  justice  to  leave  wide  room  for  joint  discussion  and  negotia- 
tion between  the  representatives  of  both  sides.  Whenever  a 
dispute  arises  in  relation  to  any  particular  change  proposed 
by  the  management,  the  mere  fact  of  the  dispute,  whether  or 
not  the  grievance  be  a  real  one,  calls  for  conference  and  an 
understanding.  It  is  the  danger  signal  indicating  that  the 
workers'  interests  are  menaced  or  at  least  in  need  of  safe- 
guarding against  the  administrative  initiative  of  the  manage- 
ment. And  the  facts  of  whether  those  interests  are  actually 
endangered  and  how  they  are  to  be  protected,  have  to  be  de- 
termined in  each  particular  situation  anew.  Hence  the  need 
of  a  continuously  functioning  joint  machinery,  like  the  price 
conmiittee,  to  deal  concretely  with  every  case  of  disputed 
authority  as  it  arises. 

The  encroachment  of  workers'  control  upon  the  sphere  of 
management  takes  two  general  forms.  On  one  side  is  the 
restrictive  or  negative  type  of  control,  which  is  aimed  at  limit- 
ing the  freedom  of  administrative  action  of  management  at 
those  points  where  it  comes  into  open  conflict  with  the  rights 
and  interests  of  workers.  On  the  other  side,  there  is  the 
positive  or  constructive  tendency  in  the  movement  for  work- 
ers' control.  This  is  marked  by  the  intervention  of  the  work- 
ers' representatives  in  the  counsels  of  management  before  the 
conflict  of  interests  reaches  the  point  of  open  breach.  In 
other  words,  the  initiation  of  a  change  in  the  conditions  of 
work  or  pay  is  in  this  case  not  effected  by  executive  action 
subject  to  review  and  reversal.    Rather,  it  is  the  result  of 


224      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

joint  discussion  or  collective  bargaining  and  agreement  be- 
tween the  parties  or,  failing  this,  of  adjudication  hj  the 
impartial  machinery.  The  terms  and  conditions  under  which 
the  intended  change  is  to  take  effect  are  stipulated  before- 
hand and  are  such  as  to  safeguard  all  the  essential  interests 
involved.  Furthermore,  they  have  legal  status  under  the 
agreement  and  are  enforcible  under  its  authority. 

By  way  of  illustration,  the  decision  by  Mr.  Wilhams  in 
the  following  case^*  throws  light  upon  the  conditions  under 
which  even  so  relatively  innocent  a  device  as  the  substitution 
of  hour- work  for  piece-work  may  be  resorted  to  by  executive 
action  of  the  management  when  a  change  in  work  is  enacted, 
and  under  what  other  conditions  such  a  change  must  first  be 
authorized  by  the  price  committee  or  the  Trade  Board.  In 
this  case  a  question  arose  over  the  division  by  the  company  of 
the  payment  of  a  button-hole  operation,  which  involved  the 
paying  of  part  of  it  on  hour-work,  and  part  on  piece-work. 
The  union  complained  that  the  more  lucrative  part  of  the 
operation  was  put  on  hour-work,  while  the  less  lucrative  was 
kept  on  piece-work,  thus  reducing  the  average  earning  power 
on  the  whole  operation.  It  also  contended  that  the  company 
was  not  entitled  to  change  a  price  fixed  by  the  price  com- 
mittee, by  administrative  action,  but  was  required  to  re- 
submit it  to  the  price  conmiittee  if  it  desired  a  change.  The 
company  explained  that  in  this  case  the  price  committee  was 
otherwise  occupied  when  the  change  was  sought,  and  it  had 
recourse  to  hour-work  as  the  fairest  way  to  dispose  of  the 
matter  while  the  conmiittee  was  busy  elsewhere.  It  held, 
further,  that  it  had  of  right  the  option  of  substituting  hour- 
work  for  piece-work  whenever,  in  its  judgment,  it  seemed 
advisable,  and,  accordingly,  it  was  justified  in  making  the 
change  in  question. 

The  Board  of  Arbitration  observed  that  the  point  in  dis- 
pute was  not  specifically  covered  either  in  the  agreement  or 
in  previous  decisions.  And  in  order  to  avoid  future  disputes 
it  gave  out  the  following  interpretation  of  the  rights  of  man- 
agement imder  the  agreement : 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        225 

"  1 .  The  right  of  the  company  to  substitute  hour  work  for 
piece  work  is  intended  to  apply  to  periods  of  change  before  the 
price  committee  has  had  opportunity  to  fix  a  legal  price. 

"  2.  After  the  price  committee  has  fixed  a  price  it  cannot  be 
changed  by  executive  action  of  the  company,  but  must  be  re- 
submitted to  the  price  committee  or  Trade  Board,  except  as 
follows : 

'^  3.  In  case  of  a  substantial  change  in  the  conditions  which 
calls  for  a  readjustment  of  the  price,  the  company  shall  give 
notice  to  the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  that  it  intends  to 
ask  for  a  readjustment  of  the  price,  and  desires  to  introduce 
hour-work. 

**  4.  The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  shall  proceed 
promptly  to  take  suitable  action,  and  shall  in  his  discretion  be 
authorized  to  put  in  hour  work  or  institute  a  temporary  piece 
work  price  if  the  regular  price  committee  is  unable  to  act  with 
sufficient  expedition. 

*'  5.  After  a  price  has  been  made  by  the  Committee,  it  shall 
go  into  effect  on  the  morning  of  the  second  day  following." 

A  more  drastic  use  of  administrative  power  by  the  em- 
ployer, where  joint  or  co-operative  procedure  was  indicated 
by  the  agreement  is  exhibited  in  the  following  notable  deci- 
sion by  the  Trade  Board.^*  The  union  in  this  case  com- 
plained that  the  people  were  kept  waiting  in  the  shop  when 
there  was  no  work,  and  the  manager  refused  to  grant  them 
passes;  also  that  hour- work  had  been  withdrawn  and  the 
manager  was  attempting  to  compel  the  people  to  work  at 
piece-work  rates  on  operations  not  in  their  section. 

The  company  admitted  that  orders  had  been  issued  requir- 
ing individuals  who  are  in  one-man  sections  to  remain  in  the 
shop,  as  the  operation  of  the  shop  depended  on  their  attend- 
ance; but  the  company  claimed  that  offers  had  been  made  to 
these  one-man  sections  to  combine  them  and  so  provide  work 
sufficient  for  these  individuals.  The  company  objected  to 
hour-work,  asserting  that  it  is  only  a  bonus  system,  involving 
allowances  to  piece-workers  which  they  do  not  earn.  The 
company  was  seeking  to  reduce  hour-work  to  a  minimum. 

The  imion  contended  that  these  orders  violated  the  agree- 
ment in  two  ways :  ( 1 )  In  respect  to  the  provision  regarding 
"  detention  in  the  shop,"  which  reads: 


226     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

"  Workers  shall  not  be  detained  in  the  shops  when  there  is 
insufficient  work  for  them.  The  company  or  its  agent  shall 
exercise  due  foresight  in  calculating  the  work  available,  and  as 
far  as  practicable  shall  call  only  enough  workers  into  the  fac- 
tory to  do  the  work  in  sight.  And  if  a  greater  number  report 
for  work  than  there  is  work  for,  those  in  excess  of  the  number 
required  shall  be  promptly  notified  and  permitted  to  leave  the 
shop.  The  work  on  hand  shall  be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be 
between  the  remaining  workers.  The  company  and  the  deputies 
have  agreed  to  cooperate  together  to  abolish  all  unnecessary 
waiting  in  the  shops." 

And  (2)  a  change  of  work  was  ordered  contrary  to  the  rul- 
ing of  the  Board  of  Arbitration:  "  Automatic  reductions  or 
reductions  by  direct  or  executive  action,  are  to  be  dis- 
couraged, etc." 

The  question  in  this  case  turned  on  whether  the  company 
was  within  its  rights  under  the  agreement  when  it  sent  out 
the  order  to  reduce  hour- work  to  a  minimum;  to  grant  no 
passes  to  workers  in  one-man  sections ;  and  to  order  sections 
to  be  combined.  In  ruling  on  the  question.  Chairman  Mul- 
lenbach  held  as  follows: 

"  The  order  to  refuse  passes  to  workers  who  have  no  work 
and  require  them  either  to  sit  in  the  shops  idle  or  accept  work 
on  terms  fixed  solely  by  the  company's  officials  is  contrary  to 
both  provisions  cited  above.  The  provision  as  to  '  Detention 
in  the  shop  '  clearly  intends  to  reduce  waiting  in  the  shop  to  a 
minimum,  and  this  was  to  be  done  by  cooperation  between  the 
company  and  the  deputies.  But  in  the  present  instance  no 
cooperation  was  attempted.  An  executive  order  requiring  wait- 
ing in  the  shop  without  work  was  sent  out.  The  ruling  of  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  (cited  above),  states  that  'It  is  clearly 
the  intention  of  the  agreement  that  no  change  of  price  or  change 
of  work  equivalent  to  a  change  of  price  should  be  made  without 
being  submitted  to  the  Price  Committee.'  There  is  no  question 
that  there  was  a  *  change  of  work  equivalent  to  a  change  of 
price  '  in  respect  to  these  one-man  sections,  and  that  such  a 
change  should  not  have  been  made  until  the  Rate  Committee 
had  taken  the  matter  up. 

"  Under  the  circumstances  the  Trade  Board  rules  that  the 
status  quo  prior  to  the  order  be  restored  *  ♦  *  ,  and  that 
the  matter  of  any  readjustment  be  referred  to  the  Rate  Commit- 
tee for  consideration." 


THE  POWERS  OF  MANAGEMENT        227 

The  line  between  the  proper  spheres  of  the  employer's 
executive  jurisdiction  and  of  workers'  rights  and  interests  is 
often  a  narrow  and  indefinite  one.  It  is,  therefore,  all  the 
more  essential  that  in  matters  likely  to  affect  these  rights  and 
interests  the  management  should  proceed  with  caution  and 
restraint.  This  means,  practically  speaking,  some  form  of 
joint  or  constitutional  procedure.  Joint  procedure  not  only 
defines  the  workers'  rights  and  interests  in  a  given  situation 
in  the  light  of  the  agreement ;  it  also  protects  those  interests 
against  invasion,  and  consequently  prevents  a  sense  of  wrong 
and  resentment  such  as  resulted  from  direct  action  by  man- 
agement in  the  case  reported  above.  Nor  is  the  reaction  of 
the  workers  always  limited  to  rebellious  feeling,  held  in 
check,  as  in  this  case,  by  union  discipline.  Often  enough  it 
finds  expression  in  stoppages,  which  merely  complicate  the 
difiiculty.  Such  was  the  result  in  the  following  case^^  where 
an  official  of  the  management  exceeded  his  authority  and 
thereby  provoked  a  stoppage. 

The  union  in  this  case  complained  that  the  management 
(examiner)  changed  the  stitch  of  the  Wilson  machines  and 
caused  the  workers  to  lose  time.  The  union  asked  for  pay 
for  lost  time  and  a  fine  on  the  management  for  violation  of 
the  agreement.  The  company  admitted  that  the  change  of 
stitch  was  improperly  made,  but  denied  that  the  people  had 
any  valid  claim  for  redress,  as  they  stopped  work  and  tried 
to  secure  redress  through  direct  action.  The  union  also  con- 
tended that  the  company  violated  the  agreement  in  adjusting 
the  machines  and  requiring  a  finer  stitch  without  calling  on 
the  Rate  Committee  to  revise  the  specification.  The  com- 
pany admitted  that  the  examiner  had  no  right  under  the 
agreement  to  alter  the  stitch,  nor  did  he  have  any  authority 
from  his  ranking  officers  to  make  the  change.  It  was  done 
on  his  own  initiative.  The  Trade  Board  ordered  a  week's 
lay-off  for  the  examiner  as  penalty  for  the  unauthorized 
alteration  of  the  stitch  and  as  a  warning  against  similar 
action  by  agents  of  the  company. 

In  this  case,  it  appears,  the  action  of  the  official  in  changing 
the  work  of  the  machine  operators  was  doubly  arbitrary.    On 


228     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

one  hand  it  was  taken  without  the  sanction  of  the  general 
management  of  the  factory,  which  should  at  least  have  been 
consulted.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  taken  without  the  pre- 
vious knowledge  or  consent  of  the  workers'  representative, 
and  as  such  constituted  a  violation  of  the  agreement.  If  the 
change  had  been  in  itself  a  legitimate  one,  as  claimed  by  the 
examiner,  it  could  have  been  effected  without  friction  by 
way  of  the  regular  procedure  of  conference  and  joint 
authorization. 


CHAPTER  XI 

DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE 

If  we  look  back  at  the  condition  of  the  workers  in  the 
Chicago  clothing  shops  in  the  year  1910,  we  find  in  the 
larger  establishments  that  the  power  of  discipline  and  dis- 
charge was  lodged  in  the  hands  of  foremen.  As  these  men 
had  generally  risen  from  the  ranks  and  felt  keenly  their 
power  over  the  rest  of  the  workers  in  the  shop,  it  was  not 
strange  that  abuses  of  authority  should  be  frequent  and 
tyrannical  treatment  common.  Not  only  were  workers  laid 
off  or  discharged  by  the  foreman  without  a  chance  to  be 
heard  in  their  own  defense,  but  that  petty  autocrat  was 
wont  to  impose  fines  and  deductions,  to  order  overtime  work, 
to  cut  piece  rates,  or  even  to  lock  out  his  workers,  with  a 
free  hand.  Foremen  were  usually  selected  for  other  quali- 
ties than  those  of  personal  refinement  or  respect  for  workers' 
rights.  Many  of  them  were  typical  bulUes  and  of  low  moral 
sensibilities.  With  women  and  young  girls  constituting  at 
least  half  of  the  people  under  them,  some  of  these  foremen 
did  not  scruple  to  subject  the  more  defenseless  workers  to 
brutal  insults  and  indignities.  They  were  able  to  do  so  with 
impunity,  for  at  that  time  the  workers  had  no  effective  re- 
dress against  mistreatment  at  the  hands  of  their  "  superiors." 
It  was  abuses  of  this  sort  that  in  their  cumulative  effect  pre- 
cipitated the  great  strike  of  1910-11,  thereby  compelling 
consideration  of  the  fundamental  defects  of  the  autocratic 
regime  in  the  clothing  industry.  One  of  the  few  provisions 
embodied  in  the  resulting  peace  pact  between  the  firm  of 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  and  its  employes  limited  the 
company's  right  of  discharge  from  that  time  forth  by  the 
obligation  not  to  discriminate  against  members  of  the  union 
— even  where  these  had  taken  an  active  part  in  the  conduct 
of  the  strike. 

That  obligation,  however,  was  merely  voluntary  on  the 


230     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

part  of  the  company  and  was  predicated  upon  its  good-will 
alone.  There  was  no  power,  as  yet,  on  the  side  of  the  union 
to  compel  its  observance  in  practice.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  company  maintained  through  its  employment  department 
a  system  of  classification  of  all  its  employes,  grading  them 
as  A,  B  and  C,  according  to  their  previous  record  in  its  shop 
and  re-employing  them  only  in  this  order  of  preference. 
Thus  the  firm  practiced  an  indirect,  though  none  the  less 
effective,  discrimination  against  those  of  its  former  employes 
who  had  for  whatever  reason  earned  the  classification  of  C. 
If,  then,  a  worker  was  refused  re-emplojinent  or  was  re- 
employed and  subsequently  discharged  by  the  firm,  he  might, 
theoretically,  appeal  his  case  to  the  newly-established  Board 
of  Arbitration.  But  the  burden  of  proof  of  discrimination 
on  account  of  union  membership  was  upon  himself,  not  upon 
the  employer. 

A  survey  of  the  growth  of  union  control  in  this  field,  as 
it  is  recorded  in  the  decisions  of  the  Trade  Board,  and  the 

oard  of  Arbitration,  shows  three  main  lines  of  progress. 
In  the  first  place,  extensive  inroads  have  been  made  upon  the 
employer's  traditional  power  of  discipline  and  discharge,  a 
considerable  share  of  this  power  having  come  to  be  lodged  in 
the  impartial  machinery.  From  this  transfer  of  power  there 
have  followed  two  other  developments  of  importance:  (a) 
the  adaptation  of  disciplinary  measures,  both  as  to  kind  and 
degree,  to  the  objective  needs  of  the  situation;  that  is  to  say, 
the  elimination  of  arbitrary  and  of  drastic  penalties  against 
workers.  And  (b)  the  coming  of  foremen  and  other  repre- 
sentatives of  management — and  incidentally  also  of  the  union 
in  the  shop — under  the  sway  of  law  and  discipline  as  ad- 
ministered by  the  Trade  Board. 

In  the  second  place,  there  has  been  a  widening  of  the  circle 
of  rights  for  the  worker  and  a  growing  up  of  guaranties 
protecting  him  in  the  exercise  of  these  rights  without  fear  of 
discipline  or  discharge.  From  being  virtually  a  rightless 
"  wage-servant  "  whose  tenure  of  his  job  was  dependent  on 
the  pleasure  of  the  employer  and  whose  liberty  of  action  on 
the  job  was  equally  precarious,  the  worker  has  come  to  oc- 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  231 

cupy  something  of  the  status  of  a  citizen  in  the  industry,  with 
a  voice  in  its  management  wherever  his  own  interests  are  in- 
volved, and  with  definitely  recognized  rights  over  against 
the  employer. 

The  third  line  of  advance  toward  control  has  been  in  the 
direction  of  increasing  participation  by  the  union  in  the  main-  j. 

fought  by  the  employers  as  the  great  menace  to  discipline    j  Ji^^-  ii'f 


tenance  of  shop  discipline  and  morale.     Once  feared  and 


M 


in  the  old  autocratic  sense,  the  union  has  gradually  become  /^  J^ 
one  of  the  most  potent  factors,  if  not  the  mainstay,  of  law  ^ 

and  order  in  the  shop.  It  has  become  an  indispensable  ally 
of  management  in  the  task  of  securing  the  willing  co-opera- 
tion of  the  workers  in  the  industry,  that  has  superseded  the 
enforced  co-operation  under  the  old  regime  of  fear  and  hate.  «/^  . 

And  along  with  its  enlarging  responsibilities  for  the  discip-    «^  fJl^y 
line  of  the  shop,  the  union  has  acquired  corresponding  rights  h 

and  privileges,  that  have,  in  turn,  contributed  to  its  growth 
both  in  numbers  and  in  solidarity,  and  made  of  it  a  powerful 
force  working  toward  self-government  in  the  industry. 

LIMITATION   OF  THE   EMPLOYER'S   DISCIPLINARY 

POWER 

Prior  to  the  growth  of  organization  among  the  clothing 
workers,  the  employers  were  unrestricted  in  their  choice  of 
means  to  make  their  authority  prevail  in  the  shop.  Nor  were 
they  over-squeamish  in  their  use  of  this  power.  Apart,  how- 
ever, from  the  free  resort  to  discharge  and  other  penalties  on 
every  occasion,  the  galling  thing  about  the  system  was  rather 
the  possibility  if  not  always  the  fact  of  petty  tyranny  and 
oppression  by  foremen  and  executives  generally.  Personal 
favoritism  on  one  hand  and  discrimination,  amounting  even 
to  persecution,  on  the  other,  characterized  the  relations  of 
those  in  power  toward  the  rest. 

A  favorite  whip  wielded  by  the  employers  over  the  people 
was  discharge.  Discharge  is,  in  general,  the  extreme  form 
of  punishment  for  a  worker.  It  means  for  him  not  only  a 
temporary  cutting  off  from  liis  livelihood,  but  a  brand  that 


282     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

in  many  cases  closed  against  him  other  doors  where  employ- 
ment might  be  f oimd.  The  discharge  penalty  is  particularly 
severe  at  times  when  there  is  a  dearth  of  work  in  the  trade, 
or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  a  surplus  of  labor  seeking 
jobs.  It  is  just  at  such  times,  however,  that  the  employer  is 
imder  the  greatest  inducement  to  apply  this  penalty  on  slight 
provocation,  since  it  affords  him  a  convenient  method  of 
'*  weeding  out "  the  insubordinate,  inefficient,  or  otherwise 
undesirable  individuals  in  his  employ.  And  if  need  be,  he 
experiences  no  difficulty  at  such  times  in  filling  their  places 
with  more  willing  workers  from  the  street. 

This  conservatively  outHnes  the  tendencies  with  reference 

to  discharge  which  had  free  sway  in  the  industry  until  the 

,   union  grew  strong  enough  to  counteract  them.     It  accom- 

/\.r  plished  this  object  of  control  over  discharge  not,  as  in  New 

I  ^      York,  by  prohibiting  it  and  thereby  laying  up  against  itself 

yA        J  for  the  future  the  grievances  and  resentment  of  the  employer. 
\  yJ'  \   t*^}  "^^^  method  in  Chicago  was  that  of  entrusting  to  the  unpar- 
f/w  ^     ^'-    *^^^  machinery  the  function  of  reviewing  the  disciplinary  acts 

^  of  the  employer,  of  testing  these  by  the  principle  of  the  pref- 

erential shop,  and  allowing  it  gradually  to  absorb  to  itself  a 

\  large  share  of  power  in  the  entire  matter. 

The  effect  of  the  union  upon  the  kind  and  degree  of  penal- 
ties imposed  upon  workers  by  their  employers  makes  itself 
felt  directly  through  the  Trade  Board.  But  the  mere  knowl- 
edge that  any  act  of  discipline  may  be  appealed  by  the  worker 
affected,  through  the  union  to  this  tribunal,  operates  as  a 
check  upon  the  employer's  free  use  of  his  power.  Notwith- 
standing this  check,  however,  many  instances  of  discharge 
occur  which,  on  being  brought  to  the  Trade  Board  for  review, 
lead  to  reinstatement  of  the  worker  and  the  substitution  of 
other,  usually  lighter,  forms  of  penalt3\  In  illustration  of 
this  moderating  influence  exerted  by  the  impartial  machinery 
upon  shop  discipline,  we  may  cite  the  case^^  of  R,  a  cutter, 
whose  discharge  had  been  ordered  as  a  result  of  several  seri- 
ous mistakes  in  his  work  following  repeated  complaints  on 
account  of  poor  work.  He  had,  however,  immediately  called 
the  attention  of  the  foreman  to  one  of  the  mistakes,  thus 


k 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  233 

frankly  acknowledging  responsibility  for  it.  In  considera- 
tion of  this  fact  the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  ordered 
the  cutter's  reinstatement,  leaving  him  the  loss  of  his  wages 
for  the  two  weeks  elapsed  since  his  discharge  as  a  penalty  to 
insure  greater  care  on  his  part  in  the  future. 

There  are  other  conditions  that  may  operate  as  extenuat- 
ing circumstances  and  protect  a  worker  from  outright  dis- 
charge which  might  otherwise  be  warranted  by  the  serious- 
ness of  his  offense.  Such  are,  for  example,  a  previously 
clear  record,  or  severe  provocation.  In  cases  of  this  sort,  the 
discharge  penalty  may  be  set  aside  by  the  Trade  Board  and 
reinstatement  on  probation  or  a  warning  accentuated  by  for- 
feiture of  a  few  days'  wages,  administered  in  its  stead.  Of 
such  a  character  was  the  case^^  of  (two  trimmers  discharged 
for  starting  a  fight  in  the  shop.  Though  they  denied  that  ^ 
they  actually  came  to  blows,  the  Trade  Board  was  convinced 
"  that  the  affair  was  little  different  from  what  is  generally 
regarded  as  a  fight.  *  *  *  Their  conduct  was  wholly  un- 
called for;  it  cannot  be  permitted  in  the  shop  and  it  is  a  re- 
flection upon  the  union.  This  is  their  first  offense  of  this 
sort,  however,  and  the  Board  will  not  approve  the  extreme 
penalty  of  discharge.  They  are  to  be  reinstated  April  15th 
without  pay  for  time  lost,  this  to  serve  as  discipline,  and  are 
warned  that  a  second  offense  will  mean  discharge."   ' 

While  the  formal  right  and  the  initiative  in  matters  of  dis- 
cipline and  discharge  remains  with  the  employer,  exception 
is  to  be  noted  in  the  case  of  union  officials,  a  subject  consid-  ^  ^ 
ered  later  in  this  chapter.  The  actual  power  has  largely 
passed  out  of  his  hands  and  into  the  keeping  of  the  Trade 
Board.  It  has  already  been  seen  that,  owing  to  the  free  use 
made  by  workers  of  their  right  of  appeal  in  discharge  cases, 
the  practical  effect  of  discharge  by  the  employer  is  merely 
that  of  suspension  pending  the  final  determination  by  the 
Trade  Board  as  to  what  the  exact  form  and  measure  of  dis- 
cipline shall  be.  The  tendency  observed  toward  less  severe 
forms  of  discipline  must  be  ascribed  to  the  growing  power  of 
discretion  vested  in  the  Trade  Board.  The  power  thus  trans- 
ferred registers,  in  the  last  analysis,  the  growing  power  of 


/JJ^ 


234     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  union — power  wrested  from  the  employers  and  exercised 
through  this  tribunal  in  the  interests  of  both. 

The  power  of  the  union  in  limiting  the  employer's  right 
of  discipline  manifests  itself  not  only  in  reducing  the  degree 
of  punishment,  but  also  in  placing  restrictions  upon  the  use 
of  certain  forms  of  penalty.  Thus  the  imposition  of  fines 
upon  workers  by  employers  has  been  practically  prohibited 
in  the  Chicago  market.  In  a  case^^  where  "a  worker  was  sus- 
pended for  damaging  a  coat  and  the  firm  offered  to  reinstate 
her  on  condition  that  she  pay  for  the  damage,  the  firm  argued 
before  the  Trade  Board  that  the  collection  of  a  money  fine 
would  be  a  reasonable  form  of  discipline.  The  union,  on  the 
other  hand,  contended  that  the  imposition  of  fines  was  a 
chief  cause  of  the  strike  of  1910  and  was  specifically  pro- 
hibited in  the  agreement  then  made  with  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx.  In  its  decision  the  Trade  Board  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  it  had  "  in  several  instances  advised  against 
the  imposition  of  fines  and  now  officially  rules  against  it 
*  *  *.  Experience  shows  that  this  form  of  discipline  lends 
itself  so  easily  to  abuse  that  it  becomes  improper.  Fre- 
quently fines  are  used  as  a  device  to  undermine  and  reduce 
wages.  Their  imposition  invariably  leads  to  bad  results  in 
the  long  run  *  *  *." 

In  another  case"^  an  apprentice  cutter,  who  had  made  a 
"mistake,  was  offered  the  alternative  of  being  discharged  or 
paying  the  firm  the  sum  of  $1.75  for  the  damage.  On  hear- 
ing the  case,  the  Trade  Board  disallowed  either  of  the  penal- 
'^^  ties  proposed,  and  stated  that  "  the  firm  should  know  that 
the  system  of  charging  workers  for  mistakes  has  been  aban- 
doned long  ago  in  this  market."  While  directing  the  worker's 
reinstatement,  the  Board  ordered  him  to  lose  three  days'  pay 
as  discipline,  thereby  in  a  manner  taking  over  the  power  of 
imposing  fines. 

The  objection  to  fines  or  similar  forms  of  discipline  is  not 
so  much  to  them  on  their  own  account  as  it  is  to  their  appli- 
cation by  the  employer.  In  the  hands  of  the  Trade  Board, 
however,  the  chance  of  abuse  of  so  dangerous  a  device  is 
slight.    Accordingly,  we  find  the  same  Trade  Board  that  had 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  235 


prohibited  employers  from  fining  workers,  doing  the  same       / 

thing  on  its  own  authority.    In  a  case^°  where /the  cutters  and  *y 

trimmers  of  an  establishment  had  stopped  work  in  protest         >  ti^ 

against  the  suspension  of  one  of  their  number,  the  Trade  y^  i  ^\ 

Board,  after  reinstating  the  suspended  worker  with  pay  for  >fxxA      J^ 

lost  time,  fined  the  other  workers  for  violation  of  the  agree-         i  y^ 

ment.    The  union  appealed  the  issue  to  the  Board  of  Arbi-    ^^ 

tration,  contending  that  "  fines  are  a  mistaken  method  of 

discipline,"  etc.   The  chairman  of  this  Board  dissented  from 

the  union's  position  that  fines  should  not  be  used  at  all.    "  If 

not  used  too  frequently  and  if  used  with  good  judgment  they 

find  a  proper  place  in  Trade  Board  discipline  *  *  *.    Fines 

are  not  a  method  of  disciplining  workers  alone.    In  this  case 

the  Trade  Board  imposed  an  indirect  fine  upon  the  firm  by 

requiring  it  to  pay  the  suspended  worker  for  all  time  lost. 

The  Chairman  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  selection  of  methods 

of  discipline  must  be  left  to  the  good  sense  of  the  Chairman 

of  the  Trade  Board."  ; 

A  safeguard  against  any  possible  mis-application  of  a 
novel  method  of  discipline  by  the  Trade  Board  lies  in  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration.    That  this  right  ^v^ 

is  occasionally  invoked  to  some  purpose  by  the  union  is  shown  Ij^**-^  v 

in  the  following  case  :^®   A  firm  petitioned  the  Trade  Board    ,       '     ^^  '; 
to  penalize  its  cutters  who  had  stopped  work  for  three  hours  ^Xkl 

and  to  compensate  the  company  for  the  resulting  loss  in  pro- 
duction. In  addition  to  loss  of  pay  for  the  period  of  stop- 
page, the  Trade  Board  ordered  the  cutters  to  work  overtime 
for  three  hours  and  to  be  paid  at  straight  time  instead  of  at  / 
overtime  rates.  The  union  appealed  from  this  part  of  the 
decision  and  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  ruled 
that  "  the  form  of  discipline  in  question  is  very  appropriate 
in  cases  where  a  stoppage  is  not  provoked  and  the  firm  is 
without  fault,"  but  not  otherwise.  In  the  case  under  review 
there  was  found  to  be  a  certain  amount  of  provocation,  and 
because  of  this  the  Board  concluded  that  "  a  fine  would  have 
been  a  more  suitable  penalty  than  the  overtime  order  ",  and 
directed  that  each  cutter  should  pay  a  fine  equal  to  one  and 


236     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

one-half  hour's  pay,  the  Trade  Board  to  determine  how  the 
money  should  be  used. 

The  second  general  consequence  of  the  accumulation  of 
vpower  by  the  impartial  machinery  is  its  extension  of  discip- 
linary control  over  the  representatives  of  the  union  on  one 
hand  and  of  the  management  on  the  other.  Under  the  old 
regime  of  personal  government  of  the  shops,  the  employer 
or  his  foreman — like  the  king  of  old — could  do  no  wrong. 
There  was  no  law  to  reach  him  if  he  did.  With  the  rise  in 
the  industry  of  government  by  law  and  reason,  however,  the 
officials  of  the  firm  in  their  dealings  with  the  workers  come 
under  the  sway  of  the  impartial  machinery  and  must  answer 
to  its  authority.  In  the  actual  application  of  discipline  to 
such  officials  the  Trade  Board  is,  of  course,  limited  by 
the  nature  of  the  situation.  It  cannot,  for  example,  impose 
inmiediate  discharge  on  a  foreman  without  consulting  the 
convenience  of  the  firm  in  replacing  him.  Nor  can  it  suspend 
a  member  of  the  firm  for  an  offense  which,  when  committed 
by  an  employe,  would  merit  such  penalty.  Nevertheless, 
there  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  Trade  Board  forms  of  dis- 
cipline adapted  to  all  cases  that  arise.  Inasmuch  as  foremen 
are  the  representatives  of  the  employer  in  the  shop,  the  appli- 
cation of  discipline  to  them  is  usually  entrusted  to  the  firm, 
although  the  specific  character  of  the  penalty  may  be  laid 
down  by  the  Trade  Board.  Thus,  in  one  case^"  the  union 
requested  discipline  of  a  foreman  and  an  assistant  foreman, 
who  were  charged  with  having  used  abusive  and  insulting 
^      y~  language  toward  workers.    The  assistant  foreman's  offense 

^  ^  was  the  more  flagrant  and  he  was  voluntarily  discharged  by 

the  firm  directly  after  the  hearing.  This  the  Trade  Board 
considered  sufficient  to  serve  as  a  warning  "  that  loose  re- 
marks will  not  be  tolerated.  It  is  expected  that  the  firm 
will  make  this  clear  to  the  foreman  and  see  to  it  that  there 
is  no  further  cause  for  complaint." 

Where  it  is  shown,  however,  that  an  official  of  the  firm  has 
been  guilty  of  wilfully  violating  the  spirit  of  the  agreement 
or  disobeying  a  decision  of  the  impartial  machinery,  the 
Trade  Board  applies  the  penalty  directly.    In  one  such  case^' 


$ 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  237 

a  charge  of  fighting  with  a  worker  in  the  shop  was  brought 
against  the  superintendent.  Because  of  his  position  of  au- 
thority and  influence,  such  action  on  his  part  was  more  seri- 
ous than  it  would  have  been  in  the  case  of  an  ordinary 
worker.  The  Trade  Board  expressed  the  opinion  that  "  only 
in  a  clear  case  of  self-defense  to  prevent  bodily  harm  would 
a  foreman  or  a  superintendent  be  justified  in  striking  a 
worker,  because  discipline  in  the  form  of  discharge  is  im- 
mediately at  hand*  *  *.  The  superintendent  is  to  pay  a 
fine  of  fifty  dollars,"  to  be  used  by  the  Trade  Board  as  a 
relief  fund. 

Trade  Board  discipline  reaches  still  higher  up.  The  union 
on  one  occasion  preferred  charges  against  a  member  of  the 
firm  for  using  insulting  and  improper  language  to  a  shop 
chairman.  The  Trade  Board  in  its  decision  set  forth  that 
"  the  representatives  of  either  management  or  workers  are 
entitled  to  courtesy  and  respect.     The  language  used  by  .    ^^ 

Mr.  W.  was   neither   courteous    nor   respectful     *     *     *.        X^ 
Apart  from  the  effect  upon  the  workers  of  this  exhibition  of  (^"''f  -  ^i^' 
temper,  the  Board  feels  that  it  is  a  serious  charge  against        ^vj^ 
management  and  may  well  be  a  matter  of  market  concern.  P;; 
The  charge  stands  as  a  matter  of  official  record.    The  Board 
adds  to  the  record  that  the  behavior  of  Mr.  W.  merits  se- 
verest condemnation.     The  Board  reprimands  him  openly 
and  gives  notice  that  the  language  used  and  the  attitude 
taken  will  not  be  tolerated." 

As  appears  from  the  cases  cited,  the  Trade  Board  may, 
if  necessary,  call  upon  the  individual  firm  for  assistance  in 
carrjnng  out  discipline  against  a  foreman,  or  superintendent, 
and  possibly  upon  the  association  of  firms  in  the  market  for 
action  against  one  of  its  membes.  In  similar  manner,  the 
Board  may  deal  with  cases  of  delinquency  of  minor  union 
officials  by  entrusting  the  application  of  disciplinary  meas- 
ures to  the  union  as  represented  in  the  Joint  Board  for  the 
market.  As  this  phase  of  the  matter  will  be  considered 
under  the  head  of  union  discipline  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter,  attention  is  here  directed  only  to  the  taking  over 
by  the  Trade  Board  of  disciplinary  jurisdiction,  as  restrict- 


\:f 


238     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ing  the  employer's  right  of  discharge  and  discipline,  in  all 
cases  involving  shop  chairmen  and  other  union  officials  em- 
jV       ployed  as  workers  in  the  shop. 

In  order  to  insure  necessary  freedom  of  action  and  pro- 
tection against  discrimination  for  the  representatives  of  the 
workers  who  are  themselves  workers  in  the  shop,  the  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement  has,  since  1913,  contained 
the  following  provision:  "Complaints  against  members  of 
the  Trade  Board  as  workmen  are  to  be  made  by  the  foremen 
to  the  Trade  Board.  Any  action  of  any  employe  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Trade  Board  shall  not  be  considered  inimical  to 
his  employment  with  the  corporation."  This  same  immunity 
has  been  extended  since  then  to  shop  chairmen  and  other 
union  officials  as  weU. 

The  dual  status  of  the  shop  chairman  as  both  a  worker 
responsible  to  the  foreman  and  a  representative  of  the 
workers  responsible  to  the  union  and  indirectly  to  the  im- 
partial machinery  makes  it  imperative  that  he  should  be 
doubly  protected  against  arbitrary  discharge  at  the  hands  of 
the  employer.  For  such  discharge,  for  whatever  ostensible 
reason,  may  easily  strike  at  the  rights  of  the  workers  whom 
he  represents  and  is  always  open  to  the  inference  that  it  was 
directed  against  his  activities  on  their  behalf. 

In  the  days  before  the  union  came  to  power  in  the  market 
its  growth  and  very  existence  were  threatened  by  the  con- 
stant elimination  through  discharge  of  those  workers  who 
were  known  to  be  active  in  the  organization.  To  make  dis- 
crimination of  this  character  impossible,  shop  chairmen  are 
subject  to  a  special  procedure  in  the  event  of  discipline. 

The  state  of  the  law  on  the  subject  is  well  summed  up  in 
the  case  of  a  shop  chairman^^  who  had  been  suspended  by  the 
firm  for  distributing  during  working  hours  an  announcement 
of  a  lecture  to  be  given  under  the  union's  auspices.  The 
firm  defended  the  suspension  on  the  ground  that  the  shop 
chairman's  action  was  in  violation  of  a  company  rule  (re- 
quiring special  permission  from  the  management  for  circu- 
lating such  handbills  in  the  shop).  After  hearing  the  case 
the  Trade  Board  directed  that  "  the  shop  chairman  should 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  239 

be  reinstated  the  next  morning     ♦     *     *     and  that  he  be  \ 

paid  for  the  time  lost  on  the  ground  that,  whatever  may  be  \l  ^'^ 

said  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  rule,  he  should  not  have  been      *  i\  jAs^^ 
suspended  at  all.  More  than  once  the  Trade  Board  has  urged  ^  *  ^.   v  il!>** 
that  shop  chairmen  should  not  be  suspended  or  discharged     j^^^'/^i^ 
unless  an  emergency  developed,  but  that  they  should  be  ^  jtj  '' 
brought  before  the  Board  for  discipline     *     *     *." 

Similar  special  treatment  is  now  accorded  to  assistant  shop 
chairmen  as  well.  This  principle  was  established  for  the 
entire  market  by  a  ruling^  ^  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  in 
which  the  chairman  of  the  Board  declared  that  an  "  assist- 
ant shop  chairman  should  not  have  been  suspended  but 
should  have  been  proceeded  against  like  a  shop  chairman 
*  *  *.  The  Board  sees  no  reason  why  there  should 
be  a  distinction  between  chairmen  and  assistant  chairmen 
in  the  matter  of  discipline." 

Other  union  officials,  who  are  at  the  same  time  regular 
workers  in  the  shop,  come  underl  the  same  rule,  and  for  a  like 
reason.  Thus  may  be  mentioned  the  case^^  of  the  treasurer 
of  a  local  union,  who  was  brought  up  by  the  firm  before  the 
Trade  Board  for  discipline  on  account  of  "  habitual  tardi- 
ness and  absences."  Some  of  this  irregularity  was  found  to 
be  due  to  proper  union  business.  The  Trade  Board,  on  be- 
ing assured  of  improvement  in  this  man's  attendance,  agreed 
to  suspend  action. 

In  the  discipline  of  shop  chairmen,  the  Trade  Board  has 
an  alternative  to  discharge  in  the  lesser  penalty  of  remov- 
ing him  from  office.  This  form  of  discipline,  however,  in- 
volves the  co-operation  of  the  union  to  give  it  effect.  In 
one  instance^  ^  a  shop  chairman  was  charged  by  the  firm  with 
having  ordered  a  stoppage  of  workers.  The  Trade  Board 
found  that  he  had  acted  under  strong  provocation,  yet  char- 
acterized the  case  as  one  of  *'  unwarranted  display  of  author- 
ity," and  decided  that  it  would  be  "  sufficient  discipline  if 
the  shop  chairman  is  relieved  of  his  duties  as  representative 
of  the  workers  for  a  period  of  thirty  days.  A  temporary 
chairman  is  to  be  elected  and  will  be  recognized     *     *     *." 

On  the  other  hand,  shop  chairmen  do  not  merely  by  virtue 


240     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


.V^ 


yJ" 


of  their  official  position,  enjoy  immunity  from  discharge  at 
the  hands  of  the  Trade  Board.  If  anything,  more  is  ex- 
pected of  them  as  regards  their  behavior  in  the  shop  and 
their  upholding  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  agreement  than 
is  demanded  of  the  rank  and  file  of  workers,  who  bear  no 
such  responsibility  of  leadership.  In  the  light  of  this  prin- 
ciple is  to  be  understood  the  action  of  the  Trade  Board**  in 
ordering  the  removal  and  discharge  of  a  certain  shop  chair- 
man who  was  found  guilty  of  abusive  language  and  repeated 
fighting  with  fellow  workers.  As  a  worker  he  is  in  the  same 
position  as  other  workers,  bearing  similar  rights  and  duties, 
and,  as  set  forth  in  another  decision :^^  "If  the  shop  chair- 
man is  unable  to  measure  up  as  a  worker  he  is  not  only  unfit 
to  serve  as  shop  chairman  but  cannot  expect  to  hold  his 
place  as  a  worker." 

Notwithstanding  its  power  of  discipline  over  shop  chair- 
men, the  Trade  Board  is  not  expected  to  take  the  initiative 
even  in  these  cases.  It  must  wait  for  specific  complaints 
on  the  employer's  part  against  such  union  officials  before 
it  can  proceed  even  to  investigate  their  conduct.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  restriction  of  the  Board's  function  is,  obviously, 
to  keep  it  a  strictly  judicial  body  and  to  protect  it  against 
any  imputation  of  taking  sides,  which  might  easily  impair 
its  authority  and  prestige.  On  one  occasion^®  a  firm  peti- 
tioned the  Board  of  Arbitration  for  a  change  in  this  system, 
under  which  the  firm  had  "  no  right  to  initiate  discipline 
(of  union  officials)  and  the  chairman  (of  the  Trade  Board) 
refused  to  take  any  responsibility  for  necessary  discipline." 
In  denying  the  petition,  the  Board  of  Arbitration  stated  the 
issue  thus :  "  The  management  feels  that  the  chairman  of 
the  Trade  Board  should  do  something  more  than  hear  cases 
filed  with  him,  that  in  some  way  or  other  he  should  be  active 
in  the  administration,"  And  the  Board's  reply  was  that 
"  the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  cannot  well  take  the 
initiative  in  this  or  other  matters,  except  perhaps  by  sug- 
gesting needed  conferences  to  the  parties  in  interest.  He 
must  not  only  be  impartial  but  must  also;  at  all  times  be  care- 
ful to  avoid  incorrect  expressions  that  he  is  not  impartial." 


Trade  Board  of  the  Wholesale  Clothiers,  Wholesale  Tailors,  Cut  Trim 
and  Make  Association,  etc.,  B.  M.  Squires,  Impartial  Chairman 


Cutters  and  Trimmers  Commission,  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx, 
James  Mullenbach,  Chairman 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  241 

EXTENSION  OF  WORKERS'   RIGHTS 

Under  the  old  regime  of  exclusive  employer's  control,  the 
worker  on  entering  the  factory  left  behind  whatever  liberty 
he  might  enjoy  as  a  member  of  the  community  at  large.  He 
submitted  himself  not  only  to  such  rules  as  a  stereotyped 
factory  discipline  entailed,  and  to  such  restrictions  on  his 
comings  and  goings,  his  associations  and  activities  even  while 
off  duty,  as  those  who  controlled  his  job  might  impose  upon 
him,  but  also  to  the  whims  of  the  foreman  and  of  others  in 
authority  over  him.  He  submitted  simply  because  he  had  no 
rights  that  had  become  recognized  or  that  could  be  enforced 
against  the  employer — short  of  a  strike  by  the  entire  shop. 
Even  elementary  personal  needs  could  be  satisfied  during 
working  hours  only  with  the  foreman's  consent.  Whatever 
shop  regulations  might  be  promulgated  by  the  employer  be- 
came law  for  the  workers  in  that  shop. 

With  the  participation  of  the  union  in  shop  government, 
these  rules  and  prohibitions  came  under  scrutiny  and  had 
to  square  with  the  agreement  jointly  entered  into,  or  go. 
Employers  could  no  longer  discipline  workers  for  refusing 
to  obey  orders  that  ran  counter  to  the  workers'  rights  as 
guaranteed  or  implied  in  the  agreement.  Among  their  rights 
so  reserved  and  guaranteed  are  those  personal  liberties  within 
the  shop  that  do  not  conflict  with  efficiency  and  good  disci- 
pline, and  that  freedom  of  movement  and  choice  outside  the 
shop  which  is  compatible  with  the  law.  The  principle  is 
illustrated  in  a  Trade  Board  case^^  turning  on  the  discharge 
of  a  worker  for  leaving  the  shop  without  a  pass.  The  worker, 
desiring  to  see  a  doctor,  had  been  refused  a  pass  by  the  fore- 
man who  required  him  to  submit  first  to  a  physical  examina- 
tion by  the  company's  medical  staff.  The  Trade  Board 
held  that  "  compulsory  attendance  on  company's  physician 
would  be  a  limitation  of  personal  liberty  not  stipulated  in 
the  agreement  nor  established  by  general  practice,"  and 
directed  that  the  worker  be  reinstated  with  pay  for  time  lost. 

In  another  case,^®  the  firm  had  issued  instructions  to  all 
its  employes  that  any  of  them  found  gambling  at  a  certain 


242     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


nearby  cigar  store  would  be  discharged.  The  threat  was  soon 
afterward  put  into  effect  against  one  worker  who  was  taken 
in  a  police  raid  on  the  place  but  who  claimed  he  had  taken 
no  part  in  any  gambling,  and  the  charge  against  him  was 
dismissed  in  court.  The  Trade  Board  directed  his  reinstate- 
ment with  pay  for  time  lost.  "  The  discharge  was  wholly 
unwarranted.  *  *  *  The  firm  can  scarcely  expect  to  say 
where  its  employes  are  to  buy  cigars  or  assume  that  anyone 
found  buying  cigars  at  this  place  is  perforce  a  gambler. 
*  *  *  The  Board  expects  the  firm  to  use  judgment  in 
exercising  its  right  of  discipline." 

The  safeguarding  of  the  worker's  right  to  the  job  and 
the  corresponding  limitations  upon  the  employer's  right  to 
"  turn  over  "  his  labor  force,  i.e.,  to  discharge  workers,  apply 
only  after  the  two  weeks'  trial  period  is  past.    During  the 
first  fortnight  of  his  employment,  the  worker  is  on  probation. 
He   must   earn  the  right  to   permanent   employment   by 
roving  his  fitness  for  the  particular  position  which  he  is  ex- 
acted to  fill.     If  he  meets  the  requirements  of  the  job  he 
is  accepted  and  has  what  is  known  as  a  "  mortgage  "  or 
presumptive  claim  upon  it.    If  he  fails  for  any  reason  what- 
soever to  satisfy  the  employer,  the  latter  is  free,  before  the 
l|^  expiration  of  the  two  weeks,  to  dismiss  him  and  call  upon 
the  union  for  another  worker  to  fill  the  vacancy. 

The  probationary  period  through  which  every  new  worker 
must  pass  before  his  employment  is  secure,  is  of  great  im- 
portance to  the  employer  from  the  standpoint  of  proper 
selection  of  his  help.  This  is  especially  the  case  where  the 
organization  of  work  in  his  shop  is  in  any  degree  different 
from  that  prevailing  in  other  establishments  in  the  market, 
and  since  the  order  in  which  the  union  supplies  him  with  can- 
didates for  the  position  does  not  insure  detailed  fitness  for  it. 
But,  while  viewing  the  matter  through  the  employer's  eyes, 
the  union  concedes  to  him  broad  discharge  powers  at  that  stage 
of  the  worker's  employment,  it  has  even  here  succeeded  in 
erecting  certain  safeguards  against  the  abuse  of  such  power. 
It  has  insisted  that  the  power  of  dismissal  shall  not  be  used 
as  an  instrument  of  discrimination  or  of  intimidation,  or  in 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  248 

any  way  for  undermining  the  union.  And  to  make  effective 
its  insistence,  the  union  has  in  Chicago  won  the  right  for  a 
member  discharged  during  the  probationary  period  to  appeal 
to  the  Trade  Board  in  any  case  where  evidence  points  to 
discrimination.  The  burden  of  proof  in  such  cases  rests,  of 
course,  on  the  union.  In  the  words  of  one  decision,  *'  The 
probationary  period  is  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the 
fitness  of  the  new  worker  and  the  firm  is  given  considerable 
latitude  during  this  period.  The  burden  of  proof  in  case 
of  discharge  rests  upon  the  union  and  discrimination  must 
be  clearly  shown." 

In  the  event  that  a  worker  is  finally  engaged,  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  his  employment  thereafter  are  understood 
to  be  those  which  obtained  during  his  probationary  period, 
and  cannot  be  changed  except  by  agreement  with  the  union. 
Nor  can  the  employer  enforce  under  threat  or  by  the  use  of 
discipline,  any  private  arrangement  entered  into  with  the  new 
worker  in  consideration  of  his  being  retained.  The  proba- 
tionary terms  of  employment,  by  virtue  of  the  implied  con- 
tract, take  on  the  character  of  rights  and  duties  under  the 
collective  agreement  and  are  enforcible  through  the  impartial 
machinery. 

The  union  in  one  case^^  complained  of  the  discharge  of  a 
certain  trimmer.  The  firm  claimed  that  the  man's  produc- 
tion had  failed  to  reach  a  standard  promised  by  him  during  ^ 
his  probationary  period — a  standard,  however,  in  excess  of 
that  actually  set  by  him  during  that  period.  In  deciding  the 
case  against  the  firm,  the  Trade  Board  stated:  "  The  only 
standard  of  production  that  the  Trade  Board  can  recognize 
under  circumstances  such  as  these  is  the  standard  set  by  the 
worker  during  his  probationary  period.  If  the  record  of  this 
is  clear  and  beyond  question  and  the  firm  chooses  to  retain 
the  worker  beyond  the  probationary  period  without  definite 
understanding  with  the  union  as  to  the  conditions  under 
which  the  worker  is  retained,  the  firm  may  be  said  to  have 
accepted  the  standards  set  during  the  period."  In  case  the 
two  weeks'  period  was  too  short  a  time  for  observing  the 
worker's  performance  under  the  most  favorable  conditions, 


244     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  firm  had  the  right  to  request  the  union  for  an  extension 
of  that  worker's  trial  period. 

Once  a  worker  has  earned  his  status  as  a  regular  employe, 
he  cannot  be  dislodged  as  long  as  his  work  and  general  con- 
duet  do  not  fall  below  the  reasonable  standards  of  the  shop. 
It  happens,  sometimes,  that  an  employer  desires  to  rid  him- 
self of  a  particular  worker  for  some  ulterior  purpose,  but 
lacking  sufficient  cause  to  justify  discharge  before  the  Trade 
Board,  welcomes  an  occasion  for  compromising  in  order  to 
discharge  him.  If  the  discriminatory  intent  behind  such  dis- 
charge can  be  shown,  the  worker  will  be  fully  protected.  In 
one  case  of  this  sort*®  the  firm  allowed  a  cutter  to  make  a 
wasteful  cut  before  calling  his  attention  to  it  and  then  sus- 
pended him  on  the  strength  of  it.  The  union  contended 
before  the  Trade  Board  that  the  man  was  no  more  careless 
than  other  cutters  and  that  the  complaint  in  question  was 
handled  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  reason  to  believe  that  the 
worker  was  discriminated  against.  The  union  charged,  more- 
over, "  that  the  firm  is  using  this  means  to  secure  closer  lays 
and  hopes  to  intimidate  other  cutters  by  discharging  this 
man."  In  ordering  the  reinstatement  of  the  worker  with  pay 
for  time  lost,  the  Trade  Board  observed  that  "  the  firm  ap- 
peared to  be  more  interested  in  getting  something  on  the 
worker  than  in  avoiding  the  waste  of  material  or  correcting 
habits  of  carelessness  in  the  worker.  Even  if  the  worker  was 
clearly  at  fault  and  his  carelessness  was  admitted,  the  Board 
would  not  be  disposed  to  hold  the  charge  against  him  in  the 
face  of  the  method  used  to  convict  him." 

HOLDING   FOR   INVESTIGATION 

Next  in  importance  to  the  general  presumptive  right  of 
the  worker  to  the  job  itself,  one  of  the  most  important  rights 
he  has  acquired  through  the  power  of  the  union  is  that  of 
holding  for  joint  investigation  any  garment  on  which  the 
workmanship  is  in  dispute  between  him  and  the  manage- 
ment. Before  the  recognition  of  this  right  it  was  possible 
for  an  employer  to  charge  a  worker  with  unsatisfactory 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  245 

workmanship  on  a  given  garment  and  to  discipline  him 
accordingly,  while  in  reality  the  workmanship  was  up  to 
the  standard  or,  if  inferior,  was  chargeable  to  some  other 
worker.  To  prevent  injustice  of  this  sort  and  to  enable  the 
union  to  present  evidence  before  the  Trade  Board  that  would 
otherwise  not  be  available,  the  right  of  the  worker  to  require 
disputed  garments  to  be  held  for  joint  examination  by  the 
union  deputy  and  a  higher  official  of  the  management  has 
become  established. 

Cases  still  occur  where  a  worker  is  suspended  for  refus- 
ing to  bushel  a  garment  returned  to  him  by  the  examiner. 
If  he  as  a  worker  considers  the  workmanship  to  be  adequate 
he  has  the  right  of  bringing  it  to  the  attention  of  the  shop 
chairman.  If  this  official  then  agrees  that  the  work  is  right 
and  takes  charge  of  the  matter,  making  formal  request,  the 
garment  must  be  held  pending  investigation.  The  shop 
chairman,  of  course,  "  is  presumed  only  to  take  up  cases 
brought  to  his  attention  with  a  request,  not  to  take  the  initi- 
ative in  holding  for  investigation."*^ 

The  law  of  procedure  governing  all  cases  of  holding  gar- 
ments for  investigation  has  been  gradually  worked  out  in  the 
course  of  many  decisions  primarily  under  the  Hart,  Schaif- 
ner  and  Marx  agreement.  One  of  the  earliest  cases*^  decided 
by  the  Trade  Board  turned  upon  this  question  as  to  whether 
the  worker  might  require  his  work  to  be  held  for  examination 
where  complaint  had  been  made  of  workmanship.  On  this 
point  the  Board  ruled  that  "  where  it  is  convenient  the  entire 
lot  should  be  held  for  investigation  when  the  worker  de- 
mands it.  Where  it  is  not  convenient  to  hold  the  entire  lot, 
then  a  selection  of  the  garments  is  to  be  made,  as  follows: 
the  worker  or  his  representatives  may  select  a  sample  of 
the  work  that  they  think  is  passable;  the  representative  of 
the  firm  may  select  a  sample  that  he  regards  as  evidence  of 
the  worst  workmanship.  These  two  samples  will  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Board  if  it  becomes  necessary,  as  evidence  of 
the  workmanship.    This  ruling  does  not  apply  to  rush  lots.'* 

It  appears  from  the  above  decision  that  the  responsibility 
in  the  matter  of  having  disputed  work  held  for  investigation. 


246     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

and  even  in  the  matter  of  selecting  the  only  sample  to  be 
held,  virtually  rested  with  the  worker  himself.  The  union 
had  not  yet  gained  sufficient  power  or  prestige  to  command 
a  distinct  function  and  corresponding  rights  in  the  situa- 
tion. Consequently,  it  is  not  greatly  surprising  to  find  that 
in  practice  the  worker's  right  to  have  even  one  garment  held 
under  these  conditions  was  not  securely  established  for  sev- 
eral years  and  did  not  effectually  protect  him  against  dis- 
charge for  exercising  that  right.  This  observation  is  borne 
out  by  the  fact  that,  in  1917,  a  test  case^^  was  made  by  the 
company  of  a  decision  by  the  Trade  Board  reinstating  with 
back  pay  an  off-presser  who  had  been  discharged  for  asking 
that  a  coat  be  held  for  investigation.  The  company  appealed 
the  case  on  the  ground  that  the  ruling  of  the  Trade  Board 
"  gave  the  worker  an  immunity  bath  and  took  the  authority 
from  the  foreman  to  discipline  for  bad  work  or  to  have  him 
complete  the  work."  On  October  11,  1917,  the  chairman 
of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  laid  down  the  following  ruling 
in  this  case,  known  as  No.  370: 

"  The  chairman  is  asked  to  review  this  case  with  special 
reference  to  defining  the  conditions  to  be  observed  when 
a  garment  is  to  be  held  for  investigation.  In  this  case  an 
imperfectly  pressed  garment  was  asked  to  be  held  for 
investigation,  and  while  the  company  consented  to  hold  the 
garment,  it  suspended  the  presser  pending  inquiry.  The  Trade 
Board  found  the  garment  imperfect  and  ordered  the  presser  to 
fix  it,  but  at  the  same  time  reinstated  him  in  his  position  with 
back  pay.  From  this  decision,  the  company  appeals,  and  asks 
that  the  holding  for  investigation  be  more  clearly  defined. 

"  The  principle  upon  which  the  right  for  investigation  de- 
pends is  the  right  of  the  worker  to  be  protected  against  the 
exaction  of  an  excessive  amount  of  work,  beyond  the  amount 
agreed  upon  in  the  specifications.  If  the  worker  believes  more 
effort  is  required  of  him  by  examiner  or  foreman  than  is  called 
for  by  the  specifications,  he  may  appeal  to  the  proper  authority 
for  a  judgment.  Unless  the  request  is  accompanied  by  insub- 
ordination or  other  offense,  the  mere  request  to  hold  for  investi- 
gation shall  not  of  itself  be  a  subject  of  penalty  pending  the 
inquiry ;  neither  shall  it  be  used  as  a  shield  to  protect  the  worker 
from  discipline  if  on  other  grounds  he  is  deserving  of  it. 

"  Inasmuch  as  the  challenge  of  the  judgment  of  the  examiner 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  247 

or  foreman  by  the  worker  involves  some  possible  complications, 
it  is  well  that  such  an  act  should  be  attended  by  some  formal 
steps,  and  the  following  are  directed : 

1.  "If  the  worker  wishes  to  have  work  held  for  investiga- 
tion in  any  department  he  shall  first  call  over  the  shop  chairman 
who  shall  examine  the  work.  If  he  approves  the  request  of  the 
worker  he  shall  make  formal  demand  on  the  foreman  or  superin- 
tendent to  hold  work  for  investigation. 

2.  "  He  shall  limit  himself  to  one  garment,  unless  it  is  clear 
that  it  is  not  enough  for  a  representation;  then  he  shall  hold 
the  least  number  consistent  with  needs  of  a  fair  investigation. 
In  no  case  shall  a  garment  from  a  rush  lot  be  held. 

3.  "  The  chairman  shall  notify  his  deputy  as  promptly  as 
possible  and  he  shall  visit  the  shop  and  pass  on  the  garment 
before  the  close  of  the  next  business  day.  If  prevented  from 
getting  there  by  reasonable  cause,  he  shall  report  such  fact  to 
the  deputy  of  the  company  and  shall  have  until  the  end  of  the 
following  day  to  make  the  investigation. 

4.  "  Unless  the  worker  shall  have  had  the  endorsement  of  his 
deputy  by  the  end  of  the  third  day  from  the  making  of  the 
demand,  he  shall  proceed  to  fix  the  garment;  or  as  soon  as  the 
deputy's  endorsement  has  been  denied. 

5.  "  If  the  deputy  shall  endorse  the  position  of  the  worker, 
the  company  may  then  take  the  case  to  the  Trade  Board,  who 
shall  give  the  case  a  hearing  as  promptly  as  practicable.  Fail- 
ure to  appeal  by  the  company,  the  worker  shall  no  longer  be 
held  responsible. 

"  The  Trade  Board  may  consider  at  its  hearing  all  tlie  issues 
and  complaints  that  may  be  involved  in  a  case  of  '  hold  for  in- 
vestigation,' and  in  its  decision  may  include  all  collateral  ques- 
tions." 

By  this  decision,  Mr.  Williams  not  only  standardized  the 
procedure  to  be  followed  in  the  type  of  case  referred  to.  He 
placed  further  limitations  upon  the  company's  administrative 
and  disciplinary  powers  by  vesting  in  the  union  officials 
discretion  in  all  matters  relating  to  holding  of  garments  for 
investigation.  Union  officials  were  now  charged  with  the 
responsibility,  first,  of  passing  upon  the  validity  of  the 
worker's  request  to  have  the  garments  held,  and  upon  the 
number  to  be  thus  held;  and  secondly,  of  passing  upon  the 
merits  of  the  disputed  work  itself  before  the  employer  could 
appeal  to  the  Trade  Board.    The  effect  of  this  procedure  was 


248     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

to  establish  an  expert  joint  commission  intermediate  between 
the  worker  directly  concerned  and  the  general  adjustment 
board. 

Part  of  the  limitation  imposed  upon  the  powers  of  man- 
agement by  the  decision  consisted  in  the  extension  ot  the 
function  of  the  shop  chairman  in  these  cases.  The  decision 
placed  upon  the  shop  chairman,  at  least  by  implication,  the 
responsibility  of  selecting  the  number  of  garments  he  be- 
lieves necessary  for  an  adequate  representation  of  the  dis- 
puted work.  It  was  but  natural  that  conflict  should  arise 
sooner  or  later  over  the  use  made  of  this  power  by  shop  chair- 
men in  critical  cases.  Accordingly,  in  February,  1919,  that 
issue  came  up  for  adjudication**  before  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration for  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  as  Case  No.  690. 
Chairman  Tufts  took  occasion  to  reaffirm  the  transfer  of 
power  to  the  shop  chairman  and  to  define  the  procedure  in- 
tended to  safeguard  it  against  abuse,  in  the  following  im- 
portant ruling: 

"  The  Board  of  Arbitration  believes  that  the  intention  of 
the  ruling  in  Case  No.  370  was  to  insure  a  fair  investigation. 
Ideally  this  would  involve  an  impartial  witness  during  the  whole 
procedure.  Neither  the  superintendent  nor  the  shop  chairman 
is  completely  impartial.  But  the  Board  believes  that  it  is 
desirable  to  make  it  very  clear  to  the  worker  that  his  rights  are 
being  protected,  even  if  need  be  at  the  expense  of  inclining  the 
balance  somewhat  in  his  direction  and  giving  him  the  benefit  of 
the  doubt.  It  holds,  therefore,  that  the  shop  chairman  must 
take  the  responsibility  of  deciding  whether  more  than  one  is 
needed  for  representation.  As  a  check  upon  abuse  of  this 
responsibility,  it  suggests  that  if  any  superintendent  has  reason 
to  believe  that  a  shop  chairman  is  either  incompetent  to  judge 
whether  several  garments  are  needed  for  the  investigation,  or  is 
wilfully  aiding  in  holding  work  beyond  what  is  necessary,  he 
may  file  complaint  against  such  chairman  with  the  Trade  Board. 
If  the  Trade  Board  finds  the  complaint  justified  it  may  censure 
the  chairman.  In  such  case  the  records  of  the  work  held  for 
investigation  by  the  chairman  for  a  period  of  time  may  properly 
be  considered." 

This  decision,  of  which  the  foregoing  excerpt  is  the  essen- 
tial part,  has  furnished  the  precedent  for  a  series  of  later 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  249 

Trade  Board  rulings.  A  case  directly  in  point*'  is  that  of  a 
cleaner,  who  was  discharged  for  refusing  to  clean  a  coat  of 
which  the  management  complained.  The  shop  chairlady 
wished  to  have  the  coat  held  for  investigation.  The  superin- 
tendent refused  on  the  ground  that  one  coat  was  already  be- 
ing held  for  investigation  by  this  girl.  The  chairlady 
claimed  she  could  hold  this  coat  also;  the  superintendent 
stated  that  his  orders  were  to  permit  only  one  coat  to 
be  held.  As  the  girl  refused  to  clean  the  coat  under  instruc- 
tions from  the  shop  chairlady,  the  girl  was  suspended  and 
discharged.  In  the  light  of  the  above  quoted  ruling  by  the 
chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  the  Trade  Board 
found  that  the  superintendent  was  required  to  hold  the  coat 
if  the  shop  chairlady  requested  it  to  be  held,  and  that  the 
suspension  of  the  girl  was  not  warranted.  The  Trade 
Board  decided,  therefore,  that  the  girl  should  be  reinstated 
with  back  pay. 

The  right  of  the  shop  chairman  to  require  a  garment  to  be 
held  for  investigation  whenever  in  his  judgment  it  is  neces- 
sary, even  where,  upon  review  by  the  Trade  Board,  his 
judgment  proves  to  be  mistaken,  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
Board  of  Arbitration.  This  interpretation  of  the  shop'  chair- 
man's responsibility  was  made  in  a  case*®  in  which  F,  a 
worker  in  a  trouser  shop,  "  insisted  that  the  garment  be  held 
for  investigation  even  though  other  garments  were  being 
held  at  that  time  involving  exactly  the  same  principle.  The 
Trade  Board  held  in  this  case  that  "  even  though  other  gar- 
ments were  held  by  others  presenting  the  same  defect 
charged  against  F,  it  seems  clear  that  he  had  a  right  to  re- 
quest that  his  own  garments  be  held  for  investigation."  The 
Board  of  Arbitration,  to  whom  the  company  appealed,  dis- 
sented from  the  ruling  of  the  Trade  Board  as  to  the  merits 
of  the  case  only,  and  gave  the  following  interpretation  of 
the  law: 

"  In  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  case  No.  690, 
it  was  the  intention  to  provide  for  two  principles :  ( 1 )  That 
the  shop  chairman  should  have  the  responsibility  for  deciding 
how  many  garments  should  be  regarded  as  necessary  evidence. 


250      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

This  was  intended  to  be  set  off  against  making  either  the  super- 
intendent on  the  one  hand  or  the  worker  himself  on  the  other, 
the  judge;  (2)  That  in  case  the  company  beheves  that  the  shop 
chairman  is  either  incompetent  in  his  judgment  as  to  how  many 
garments  should  be  held  or  is  purposely  holding  garments  not 
needed  as  evidence,  it  may  file  a  notice  with  the  Trade  Board  of 
the  case  and  either  at  that  time  or  later  when  additional  in- 
stances of  this  same  sort  occur,  may  ask  the  Trade  Board  for 
such  action  as  the  case  demands. 

"  The  Board  of  Arbitration  holds  that  these  two  principles 
may  be  properly  applied  to  the  present  case,  although  this 
involves  the  somewhat  different  angle  that  several  workers  are 
involved  and  that  the  company  considers  that  one  garment  is 
sufficient  evidence,  and  that  therefore  it  is  not  necessary  that 
each  man  should  have  his  own  garments  held. 

**  It  seems  to  the  Board  that  on  this  principle  it  would  not 
necessarily  be  the  case  that  a  garment  from  each  of  several 
workers  should  be  held  for  investigation.  Therefore,  it  can- 
not be  said  that  each  man  has  a  right  to  have  his  garment  held 
for  investigation  irrespective  of  the  fact  that  it  is  of  the  same 
character  as  other  garments.  The  important  and  controlling 
point  is  not  whose  garment  it  is  but  whether  there  is  a  real  and 
essential  difference  in  the  garment.  If,  therefore,  a  worker 
claims  to  have  his  garment  held  when  there  is  already  another 
garment  being  held  for  investigation,  he  cannot  rest  his  claim 
simply  on  the  fact  that  it  is  his  garment.  He  must  show  that 
it  involves  some  different  point  or  kind  of  workmanship. 

"  But  the  shop  chairman  is  to  be  the  judge  as  to  any  claim  so 
made.  He  must  take  the  responsibility  of  saying  whether  one 
or  two  or  three  or  more  garments  are  needed,  whether  they  come 
from  one  workman  or  from  different  workmen.  This  protects 
the  workman  because  the  shop  chairman  is  his  own  representa- 
tive. The  shop  chairman,  in  making  his  decision,  is  to  be 
guided  by  the  principles  stated  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 
That  is,  he  will  not  hold  additional  garments  simply  because 
they  come  from  different  workmen  unless  there  is  such  a  differ- 
ence as  makes  it  important  for  a  fair  decision  that  they  should 
be  retained  as  evidence. 

"  Finally,  the  company  has  a  check  upon  the  efficiency  and 
sincerity  of  the  shop  chairman  in  the  method  of  record  and 
hearing  before  the  Trade  Board. 

"  It  is  the  belief  of  the  Board  that  if  this  method  is  followed 
it  will  be  possible  after  a  sufficient  interval  to  find  out  whether 
both  sides  are  adequately  protected.  It  is  desirable,  therefore, 
that  a  record  should  be  kept  so  that  at  some  later  time  it  may 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  251 

be  possible  to  review  the  situation  and  ascertain  whether  some 
different  adjustment  is  needed    *    *    «  " 

The  effect  of  the  foregoing  decision  was  to  set  up  along- 
side of  the  guaranteed  right  of  the  shop  chairman  in  the 
situation,  his  accountabihty  to  the  impartial  machinery  for 
the  discriminating  use  of  this  right.  It  is  a  right  conditioned 
in  its  exercise,  like  all  restrictions  upon  the  freedom  of  man- 
agement, by  the  necessity  of  protecting  substantial  interests 
of  the  workers.  In  other  words,  the  shop  chairman's  deci- 
sions in  the  matter  of  holding  for  investigation  must  be 
reasonable  rather  than  arbitrary.  It  was  to  establish  this 
principle  of  reasonableness  that  the  company  appealed  from 
a  certain  Trade  Board  decision,*^  which  had  declared  that 
"  The  right  to  hold  for  investigation  cannot  be  withheld  from 
the  union  or  its  official  because  the  company's  manager  thinks 
the  demand  is  unreasonable  or  unnecessary  in  any  case 
*  *  *."  The  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  agreed 
with  this  statement  of  the  Trade  Board.  He  added,  however, 
the  following  qualification:  "It  is  expected  that  a  reason 
shall  be  given  when  a  request  is  made  that  a  garment  be  held 
and  that  the  shop  chairman  shall  be  held  responsible  for  the 
proper  use  of  the  right  accorded     *     *     *." 

If  the  management  still  thinks  the  shop  chairman  is  mak- 
ing an  unnecessary  demand  for  holding  a  garment,  or  that 
his  reason  for  holding  it  is  not  an  adequate  one,  it  may  com- 
plain to  the  Trade  Board.  An  illustration  of  this  procedure 
is  found  in  the  case*®  of  W,  a  shop  chairman,  whom  the  com- 
pany charged  before  the  Trade  Board  with  having  held  an 
excessive  and  needless  number  of  coats  for  investigation.  On 
hearing  the  evidence,  the  Trade  Board  found  no  sufficient 
reason  for  special  discipline  except  to  warn  W  to  be  more 
careful  in  exercising  the  right  to  hold  garments.  "  That 
right  carries  a  very  definite  responsibility  for  its  careful 
exercise  and  shop  chairmen  should  hold  the  least  number  of 
garments  necessary  to  illustrate  and  support  their  complaint. 
The  holding  of  garments  is  an  interference  with  manage- 
ment and  is  only  allowed  because  the  interests  of  the  workers 
need  safeguarding,  but  the  interference  with  the  flow  of  work 


252      CLOTHIXG  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

should  be  kept  at  its  lowest  terms.  In  general,  this  has  been 
the  case  in  the  observation  of  the  Trade  Board,  but  the  point 
needs  constant  watching  and  restraint  by  the  shop  chairman." 

The  obligation  resting  upon  the  shop  chairman  to  observe 
moderation  in  the  use  of  his  right  to  have  garments  held  for 
investigation  extends  also  to  the  worker  directly.  In  the 
language  of  a  recent  Trade  Board  decision*® :  "  The  right  of 
a  worker  to  ask  that  a  garment  be  held  for  investigation  is 
admitted,  but  judgment  is  to  be  exercised  and  the  worker  is 
expected  to  be  willing  to  recognize  and  admit  obvious  mis- 
takes; otherwise,  every  mistake  would  have  to  be  made  a 
matter  of  joint  investigation."  The  worker's  obligation  to 
fix  work  returned  to  him  that  he  himself  knows  to  be  poor,  is 
not  set  aside  by  his  right  of  refusal  in  other  cases. 

Even  when,  in  the  worker's  judgment,  the  work  should  be 
held  for  investigation  and  the  shop  chairman  makes  a  selec- 
tion of  garments  as  a  representation  of  those  in  dispute,  the 
worker  is  not  released  from  the  obligation  of  fixing  the  other 
garments  in  dispute  that  are  not  thus  held.  This  principle 
was  laid  down  in  a  decision  by  Chairman  Tufts,**  already 
quoted  in  part.  He  ruled  that  "  The  worker  shall  fix  all 
other  coats  and  may  not  ask  for  a  further  holding  for  in- 
vestigation until  the  case  is  decided."  And  in  a  later  deci- 
sion*^"  he  elucidated  this  point  as  follows:  "  The  clause  (just 
quoted)  shall  be  understood  to  mean  *  the  worker  shall  fix  all 
other  coats  than  those  which  the  shop  chairman  decides  to  be 
necessary  for  a  fair  investigation  '." 

This  obligation  on  the  worker  and  the  reasonable  limits 
within  which  the  management  may  be  justified  in  enforcing 
it,  are  illustrated  in  a  recent  Trade  Board  case  already 
cited.**  A  worker  was  suspended  for  refusing  to  fix  work 
other  than  that  held  for  investigation.  The  chairman  of  the 
Trade  Board,  citing  the  Tufts  decision  as  applicable,  de- 
clared it  "to  mean  nothing  less  than  that  the  worker  is  to  fix 
the  coats  in  this  case.  His  refusal  to  do  so  was  sufficient 
ground  for  discipline.  At  the  same  time  the  chairman  of  the 
Trade  Board  would  state  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  main  con- 
cern in  the  case  of  disputes  of  this  nature  should  be  to 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  253 

determine  without  delay  whether  the  firm  or  the  worker  is  at 
fault  and  not  to  insist  on  having  the  work  done  a  certain  way 
irrespective  of  its  urgency.  If  the  work  can  be  laid  aside 
without  loss  until  an  investigation  can  be  made  or  the  case 
can  be  heard  by  the  Trade  Board,  this  should  be  done  rather 
than  insist  on  putting  the  work  through.  If  the  work,  other 
than  that  held  for  investigation,  can  not  be  delayed,  the  firm 
is  quite  within  its  right  in  insisting  that  it  be  done.  Rush 
work,  of  course,  cannot  be  held  for  investigation."  The 
Trade  Board  directed  the  reinstatement  of  the  worker. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  worker  may  not  be  required,  pend- 
ing a  decision  by  the  committee  or  by  the  Trade  Board  on 
the  work  held  for  investigation,  to  do  better  work  than  that 
in  dispute.  Otherwise,  the  management  would  be  practically 
making  itself  the  judge  of  the  dispute.  In  one  instance''^  a 
worker  was  suspended  for  refusing  to  do  his  work  better  than 
a  sample  already  laid  aside  for  investigation.  The  Trade 
Board  directed  his  reinstatement  with  pay  for  time  lost.  The 
basis  for  this  decision  was  stated  as  follows :  "  Investiga- 
tion is  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  what  is  correct  work. 
To  make  a  demand  that  the  work  be  done  better  than  that 
held  for  investigation  as  a  condition  of  being  permitted  to 
work  is  improper,  for  the  question  of  what  is  correct  work 
has  then  passed  from  the  foreman  and  man  to  others  for  deci- 
sion on  its  merits.  Pending  a  decision,  the  firm  is  not  to 
demand  better  work  than  that  being  passed  on.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  man  must  correct  all  poor  work  done  (that  less 
good  than  that  held  for  investigation )  and  may  be  disciplined 
for  refusal  to  make  such  correction  or  for  persisting  in  doing 
poor  work." 

From  the  beginning,  as  has  been  shown,  the  right  to  hold 
for  investigation  has  not  been  conceded  as  applying  to  gar- 
ments from  a  "  rush  "  lot.  The  reason  for  this  exception 
from  the  point  of  view  of  management  is  obvious.  In  one 
case*^^  where  a  worker  was  suspended  for  refusal  to  do  certain 
work  as  ordered  and  for  asking  it  to  be  held  for  investigation, 
the  Trade  Board  upheld  the  action  of  the  firm.  It  ruled 
that  "  the  lot  in  question  was  a  rush  order.    The  worker  had 


254      CLOTHING  AVORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

no  right  to  demand  that  the  garments  be  held  for  investiga- 
tion or  to  refuse  to  do  the  work  as  directed."  In  view  of 
this  and  previous  complaints  the  Board  dechned  to  reinstate 
him. 

Since  the  right  to  hold  for  joint  investigation  belongs  also 
to  the  employer,  the  procedure  must  be  such  as  to  protect  the 
worker  against  the  possibility  of  its  misuse.  Thus,  in  one 
case,^^  a  garment  was  presented  by  the  firm  for  joint  in- 
vestigation without  any  notice  of  such  intention  having  been 
given  either  to  the  worker  or  to  the  shop  chairman  at  the  time 
the  garment  was  held.  When  it  was  presented  the  worker 
accused  the  foreman  of  having  tampered  with  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  "  framing  "  him.  The  Trade  Board  in  its  decision 
approved  the  contention  of  the  union  that  "  when  a  worker  is 
accused  of  poor  work  and  this  is  to  be  made  the  basis  of  a 
specific  complaint  and  formal  investigation,  the  defects 
should  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  worker  and  the  shop 
chairman  and  definite  arrangements  made  for  a  joint  in- 
vestigation. There  should  be  no  occasion  to  question  that 
the  work  is  in  exactly  the  same  condition  as  the  operator 
left  it." 

Beyond  the  well-defined  right  to  be  represented  by  his 
shop  chairman  whenever  disputed  work  is  to  be  held  for  in- 
vestigation, the  worker  has  gained  the  more  general  right  of 
calling  upon  the  shop  chairman  for  advice  and  help  in  what- 
ever matter  he  may  feel  the  need  of  it.  This  right  of  con- 
sultation has  been  clearly  established  by  a  decision  of  the 
Board  of  Arbitration^*  in  a  case  brought  to  it  on  appeal. 
The  appeal  was  taken  by  the  firm  '^'  from  the  principle  enun- 
ciated by  the  Trade  Board  that  the  employes  have  a  right 
to  do  anything  which  is  not  strictly  forbidden  in  the  agree- 
ment." The  union  contended  that  no  such  right  was  claimed, 
nor  did  the  chairman  find  such  a  principle  announced  by  the 
Trade  Board.  It  simply  affirmed  the  right  of  the  worker  to 
call  upon  his  shop  chairman,  which  right,  under  the  agree- 
ment, the  Trade  Board  held,  could  not  be  denied  by  a  rule 
requiring  him  to  obtain  permission  from  the  foreman.  And 
the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  ruled  as  follows: 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  255 

*'  The  right  of  the  employe  to  have  free  and  unimpeded 
access  to  his  shop  chairman  is  implied  on  pages  6  and  7  of 
the  agreement  (1916),  which  would  not  otherwise  be  work- 
able; although  it  is  provided  that  the  foreman  shall  be  in- 
formed of,  the  purpose  of  the  employe's  movements  if  he  so 
desires.  Like  any  other  right  it  is  susceptible  to  misuse,  and 
if  any  worker  is  found  abusing  this  right  by  using  it  to  kill 
time,  or  for  any  improper  purpose,  he  is  subject  to  such  dis- 
cipline as  may  be  imposed  by  the  Trade  Board." 

The  right  of  the  worker  to  be  accompanied  in  person  by 
the  shop  chairman  when  complaints  of  any  sort  are  to  be 
taken  up  with  him  by  officials  of  management  is  not  so  clear. 
Nevertheless,  a  trend  in  this  direction  is  apparent.  The 
present  status  of  the  right  is  shown  in  a  more  recent  Trade 
Board  case*^^  of  a  worker  discharged  for  refusing  to  answer 
the  labor  manager's  questions  unless  the  shop  chairman  were 
allowed  to  be  present.  The  union  upheld  the  worker  in  this 
position,  but  the  Trade  Board  refrained  from  laying  down 
any  general  rule.  It  found  that  "  some  complaints  are  of 
such  a  nature  that  the  shop  chairman  should  be  present  when 
they  are  taken  up  with  the  worker.  However,  the  firm  can 
scarcely  be  denied  the  right  to  interview  the  workers  in- 
dividually." The  issue  presented  in  this  case  is  likely  to 
come  up  again  in  other  forms  as  workers  or  union  feel  the 
need  of  protection  against  possible  abuse  of  the  employer's 
right  of  individual  interview. 

PARTICIPATION  BY  THE  UNION  IN  SHOP  DISCIPLINE 

Up  to  this  point,  in  discussing  the  growth  of  union  control 
over  shop  discipline,  the  emphasis  has  been  chiefly  upon  the 
defensive  phase  of  the  situation.  The  union  has  been  shown 
operating  in  the  capacity  of  defender  of  the  individual  worker 
against  arbitrary  or  oppressive  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the 
employer.  It  has  appeared  as  demanding,  both  directly  and 
through  the  authority  of  the  impartial  machinery,  the  restric- 
tion of  the  employer's  freedom  of  action  in  discharge  and 
discipline  in  particular  cases.    It  has  labored  successfully  in 


256      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  direction  of  strengthening  the  impartial  machinery  and 
enhancing  its  authority  over  matters  of  discipline  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  employers.  And  finally,  it  has  enforced  regard 
for  certain  rights  of  the  worker  for  which  it  has  from  time 
to  time  secured  recognition  and  verbal  embodiment  in  the 
agreement  and  the  decisions.  Every  step  on  this  road  has 
redounded  to  the  greater  security  of  the  individual  worker 
in  his  job  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  those  rights  and  conditions 
that  go  with  the  job  in  a  union  shop. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  to  the  picture.  That  is  the 
collective  aspect.  The  union,  as  the  organization  of  all  the 
workers  in  the  industry,  has  certain  larger  and  more  perma- 
nent interests  to  serve  alongside  of  the  protection  of  in- 
dividual workers  against  the  untoward  consequences  of  their 
daily  actions  in  the  shop.  These  larger  interests  are  (1) 
those  of  building  up  a  powerful  organization  that  can  act 
promptly  and  effectively  in  the  interest  of  all  the  members 
when  called  upon;  and  (2)  of  an  efficient,  stable  industry  as 
the  solid  foundation  for  the  structure  of  the  union  itself. 
With  these  two  main  aims  in  view,  the  union  pursues  its 
policy  of  collective  bargaining  and  agreement-making  /as 
the  one  best  calculated  to  promote  peaceful  development  of 
both  union  and  industry. 
p  Now,  the  agreement  is  necessarily  a  two-sided  affair.  It  is 
I  entered  into  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  both  parties.  Each 
J  gives  as  well  as  receives,  its  relative  strength  at  the  time  de- 
termining how  favorable  or  unfavorable  the  bargain.  The 
agreement  guarantees  rights  and  privileges  to  each,  and  the 
rights  of  one  are  the  obligations  of  the  other.  Thus,  the 
rights  of  the  workers  relate  to  such  matters  as  wages  and 
working  conditions,  security  in  employment  and  opportunit}' 
for  redress  of  grievances  against  the  employer.  In  conced- 
ing the  workers'  rights  in  all  these  respects,  the  employer, 
through  the  agreement,  acknowledges  his  own  obligation  to 
meet  the  requirements  and  restrictions  they  impose  upon  him. 
He  accepts  definite  obligations  toward  the  workers  in  his 
^employ.  Similarly,  the  union,  as  spokesman  for  the  workers, 
-accepts  certain  obligations  toward  the  employer — obligations 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  257 

corresponding  to  the  recognized  rights  of  the  employer.  The 
rights  of  the  employer  are  those  of  management.  They  bear 
chiefly  on  the  control  of  production  and  the  operation  of  the 
factory.  They  are  not  absolute  rights,  but  are  to  be  exer- 
cised with  reasonable  restraint,  and  with  due  regard  to  the 
rights  of  the  workers  affected.  As  such  the  union  acknowl- 
edges the  employer's  rights  and  thereby  accepts  the  responsi- 
bility for  upholding  them,  even  against  its  own  individual 
members,  if  necessary.  Concretely,  the  union  undertakes  to 
see  to  it  that,  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  matter  rests  with  the 
workers,  there  shall  be  no  unnecessary  interruption  or  inter- 
ference with  production  and  no  unwarranted  disorder  in  the 
shop.  The  authority  of  the  management  over  the  workers 
is  to  be  upheld  so  long  and  so  far  as  it  is  exercised  in  accord- 
ance with  the  agreement,  or  the  custom  of  the  market.  There 
are  positive  reasons  of  policy  why  the  union  can  afford  to 
give  this  co-operation  to  the  employers,  but  apart  from  these 
it  can  be  easily  seen  that  the  workers  themselves  have  not 
least  to  gain  from  good  order  and  efficient  management  in 
the  shop.  Participation  in  maintaining  shop  discipline  in 
this  sense  becomes,  in  time,  a  genuine  concern  of  the  organ- 
ization. 

This  is  not  to  say,  of  course,  that  the  union  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  take  the  initiative  in  shop  discipline.  That  initiative 
still  rests  with  the  employer,  who  is  more  immediately  con- 
cerned and  benefited  by  its  exercise.  But  the  union's  func- 
tion in  this  connection  is  that  of  backing  up  the  employer  and 
the  impartial  machinery  in  the  enforcement  of  the  employer's 
rights  under  the  agreement,  whenever  its  violation  at  the 
hands  of  the  workers  is  in  question.  The  entire  machinery 
of  the  union  both  in  the  shop  and  in  the  Joint  Board  office, 
which  at  times  operates  in  behalf  of  the  rights  of  the  workers 
under  the  agreement,  is  called  into  play  at  other  times  to 
secure  performance  of  their  duties  under  the  agreement.  As 
a  result  of  this  '*  responsible  "  character  of  the  organization  it 
is  in  a  position  to  demand  and  gradually  to  obtain  a  recog- 
nized place  and  share  in  the  government  of  the  shop. 

Practically  considered,  this  means  that  the  employer  be- 


258      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

comes  increasingly  dependent  for  production  and  the  smooth 
rmining  of  his  establishment  upon  the  good  will  and  co- 
operation of  the  union.  He  may,  of  course,  exercise  his  right 
of  discipline  in  dealing  with  individual  workers  who  offend 
against  his  legitimate  authority.  But  he  cannot  in  this  way 
deal  with  an  entire  section  or  shop  that  has  become  rebellious 
or  disorderly.  Disciplinary  measures  applied  wholesale 
would  only  aggravate  his  problem.  Workers  are  no  longer 
to  be  cowed  into  obedience.  They  must  yield  it  willingly, 
if  at  all.  An  antagonistic  or  suspicious  frame  of  mind  is  to 
be  dispelled  not  by  force  but  by  conciliatory  and  educational 
means,  for  force  provokes  counter-force.  Any  innovation 
in  methods  of  work  or  pay  that  is  imposed  by  order  of  the 
management  is  apt  to  call  out  opposition  from  the  workers 
affected.  To  discharge  them  for  insubordination  may  merely 
result  in  a  general  stoppage  of  work  and  resentment  all 

(round.  The  employer  is  not  properly  concerned  with  the 
abstract  right  of  having  his  orders  obeyed.  He  is  greatly 
concerned  with  getting  out  production,  and  this  depends 
on  the  willing  co-operation  of  the  workers.  These  must,  ac- 
cordingly, be  induced  to  give  their  consent  to  the  change  pro- 
posed; they  must  feel  assured  that  their  rights  and  stand- 
ards will  not  be  jeopardized  by  it,  even  indirectly.  Such 
assurance  can  ultimately  come  to  them  only  from  their  own 
organization,  as  the  sole  power  that  can  be  depended  upon 
to  protect  their  interests  against  the  employer  under  all  cir- 
cumstances. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  union  functions 
as  a  force  for  maintaining  order  in  the  shop,  we  may  cite  the 
case^®  of  a  firm  whose  discipline,  according  to  its  own  state- 
ment, was  very  unsatisfactory.  In  order  to  remedy  the  situa- 
tion, the  firm  had  called  on  the  union  for  assistance.  The 
labor  manager  and  the  deputy  investigated  conditions  and 
were  working  together  to  bring  about  improvement,  when  a 
new  clash  occurred.  One  day,  when  the  shaper  was  absent, 
the  piece  presser  was  told  to  do  some  shaping.  He  refused 
to  do  the  work  and  was  suspended.  The  procedure  on  both 
sides  was  improper.     The  worker,  if  he  felt  that  he  was 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  259 

wrongfully  required  to  do  something  outside  his  regular 
duties,  could  have  protested  and  called  the  shop  chairman,  to 
make  sure  that  his  interests  would  be  safeguarded.  The 
foreman,  likewise,  had  this  opportunity  to  obtain  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  union  representative  for  his  order.  He  chose 
the  way  of  direct  action.  In  reinstating  the  worker,  the 
chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  called  attention  to  the  impor- 
tance for  the  firm  of  entrusting  to  the  union  what  amounts 
to  a  greater  share  in  the  government  of  the  shop.  "  Disci- 
pline," he  declared,  "  rests  with  the  firm  but  its  effectiveness 
depends  in  considerable  measure  on  the  co-operation  of  the 
union.  The  union  is  co-operating,  as  testified  by  the  firm, 
in  helping  to  restore  discipline  in  the  shop.  The  deputy  told 
the  worker  in  this  case  that  he  was  to  carry  out  the  order  of 
the  foreman.  This  is  the  kind  of  co-operation  that  brings 
results.     *     *     * " 

When  necessary,  the  union  goes  further,  taking  a  positive  ^ 
interest  in  the  conduct  of  its  members  in  the  shop.  Evidence 
of  this  is  supplied  by  the  case  of  a  certain  apprentice  cutter j*^^  [ 
who  was  discharged  for  impertinence  to  the  proprietor  after 
having  had  a  bad  record  in  the  shop  for  general  insubordina- 
tion. At  the  hearing  the  shop  chairman  testified  that  he 
had  taken  the  matter  up  with  the  union  in  an  effort  to  bring 
the  worker  under  control.  He  felt  that  there  was  no  hope  of 
making  an  acceptable  cutter  of  the  young  man  and  that  he 
should  not  be  reinstated.  In  cases  of  this  sort,  the  interest 
of  the  union  in  a  well-conducted  shop  coincides,  to  a  certain 
extent,  with  that  of  the  employer,  since  the  habitual  misbe- 
havior of  one  worker,  if  unchecked,  may  eventually  demoral- 
ize the  entire  shop.  ! 

The  union  further  holds  itself  ready  to  enforce,  at  the  em- 
ployer's request,  the  worker's  obligation  to  give  reasonable  {/ 
notice  before  quitting  his  job  when  there  is  a  shortage  of 
help  in  the  market.  Since  this  creates  for  the  employer  a  like 
obligation  toward  the  worker  in  the  case  of  lay-off  and  on 
other  occasions,  such  co-operation  on  the  union's  part  is  only 
good  policy. 

Probably  the  most  serious  breach  of  shop  discipline,  which 


260      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

is  at  the  same  time  a  violation  of  the  agreement,  and,  there- 
fore, of  direct  concern  to  the  organization,  is  the  stoppage  or 
shop  strike.  This  may  be  regarded  as  a  survival  of  the  time 
before  collective  bargaining  and  regular  machinery  for  ad- 
justing complaints  had  been  established  in  the  industry. 
Stoppages  were  then  not  only  frequent  occurrences,  some- 
times even  taking  on  the  dimensions  and  stubborn  character 
of  an  actual  strike,  but  they  were  unavoidable  as  a  way  for 
the  workers  to  obtain  attention  for  their  grievances.  They 
were  explosions  of  rebellious  feeling  bound  to  result  under 
a  system  of  repressive  shop  government  that  refused  to  take 
the  human  instincts  of  the  workers  into  account.  Under  that 
system  there  could  be  no  parley  between  workers  and  man- 
agement, for  the  workers'  spokesman  would  be  liable  to 
prompt  discharge  for  his  pains,  and  certainly  would  be  re- 
garded as  an  undesirable  agitator. 

This  state  of  affairs  has  radically  altered  in  consequence 
of  the  coming  of  the  union  and  orderly  government  into  the 
industry.  No  longer  are  absolute  powers  wielded  by  fore- 
men over  their  workers  without  regard  to  these  workers' 
rights  and  wants.  Instead,  we  now  have  foremen  shorn  of 
all  arbitrary  power  and  even  the  higher  officials  of  manage- 
ment exercising  what  authority  remains  to  them  subject  to 
the  restraints  of  law,  established  procedure,  and  judicial  re- 
view. Instead  of  an  occasional  spokesman  risking  his  job 
for  his  fellow  workers  in  presenting  their  grievances,  they 
have  regularly  elected  and  duly  recognized  representatives 
in  every  shop,  who  enjoy  not  only  immunity  from  persecu- 
tion but  also  the  courtesy  and  respect  due  union  officials  in 
dealing  with  the  management.  And,  finally,  instead  of 
grievances  accumulating  until  they  become  unbearable  and 
find  vent  in  sporadic  revolt,  every  grievance  or  dispute  can 
be  effectively  aired  and  adjusted  through  the  legally  estab- 
lished channels,  as  it  arises. 

And  still  there  are  stoppages  of  work.  They  occur  less 
often  and  involve  less  bitterness  than  formerly,  but  they  in- 
terrupt production  and  may  entail  loss  of  earnings  to  other 
workers.     From  the  standpoint  of  reasonable  adjustment 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  261 

of  differences,  stoppages  represent  a  step  backward.  They 
are  a  form  of  direct  action  that  is  both  wasteful  and  unneces- 
sary because  other  methods  of  redress  are  available.  In  vie\r 
of  this  wastefulness  of  stoppages  as  regards  both  workers' 
earnings  and  shop  production,  and  also  because  of  their  un- 
dermining effect  upon  the  authority  and  prestige  of  the  union 
itself,  stoppages  have  been  outlawed  under  the  agreement. 
They  are  specifically  forbidden  and  the  union  accepts  re- 
sponsibility for  suppressing  them.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, a  stoppage,  from  being  merely  a  question  of  shop 
discipline — a  problem  primarily  for  the  employer — may  be- 
come a  matter  of  organization  discipline — a  problem  for  the 
union.  For  it  is  at  this  point  that  the  union  is  concerned 
not  merely  with  maintaining  the  flow  of  production  but  also 
with  vindicating  its  authority  and  prestige  with  the  member- 
ship. 

In  carrying  out  its  police  function  in  cases  of  stoppages 
the  union,  through  its  officials,  appeals  to  the  workers  con- 
cerned to  return  to  their  places  in  the  shop  and  to  resume 
operations.  Sometimes  the  authority  of  the  shop  chairman 
is  insufficient  to  secure  compliance  and  it  is  necessary  for  a 
deputy  of  the  organization  to  be  called  in.  The  procedure 
as  well  as  the  law  on  the  subject  may  be  illustrated  by  the 
following  case  :'^^  A  firm  complained  that  an  entire  coat  shop 
had  stopped  work  for  four  hours,  and  requested  the  Trade 
Board  to  impose  "  such  discipline  as  it  deems  just  to  prevent 
a  recurrence  of  this  violation  and  restore  order  in  this  shop." 
The  stoppage  had  developed  out  of  the  lay-off  of  an  off- 
presser,  who,  before  leaving  the  shop  acted  in  a  manner  to 
rouse  sympathy  for  himself  among  other  workers.  As  he 
left,  first  some  and  then  all  except  the  shop  chairman  stopped 
work.  The  shop  chairman  failed  in  his  effort  to  get  them 
to  resume.  So  did  a  deputy  sent  by  the  manager  of  the 
union.  It  was  only  when  the  regular  deputy  for  the  shop 
came  in  that  they  returned  to  work.  In  ruling  on  this  case, 
the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  gave  the  following  opin- 
ion ;  "  With  operation  under  the  agreement  for  more  than 
a  year  and  a  half,  and  with  explanations  and  orders  from 


I 


262      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  shop  chairman  and  a  deputy,  the  Trade  Board  sees  no 
excuse  for  the  behavior  in  this  instance.  The  workers  grossly 
violated  the  agreement,  which  explicitly  provides  that  there 
shall  be  no  stoppages  or  interruptions  of  work  and  provides 
a  reasonable  way  to  see  that  justice  shall  be  done.  They 
have  not  acted  as  intelligent  and  responsible  members  of  the 
Amalgamated,  which,  as  shown  by  its  efforts,  deplores  such 
action."  As  a  penalty,  the  Board  imposed  on  every  partici- 
pant in  the  stoppage  a  fine  equal  to  four  hours'  earnings,  the 
money  to  be  apphed  by  the  Trade  Board  to  relieving  cases 
of  need. 

The  union  has,  in  the  course  of  time,  come  to  assume  the 
full  responsibility  for  suppressing  and  preventing  unauthor- 
ized stoppages  by  its  memibers.  In  a  case^^  similar  to  the 
above,  all  the  workers  in  a  coat  shop  stopped  work  when  a 
pocket  maker  was  discharged,  although  the  cause  for  his  dis- 
charge was  apparently  unknown  to  them  at  the  time.  Both 
the  deputy  and  the  shop  chairman  tried  to  get  the  people  to 
resume  work  and  finally  took  them  to  union  headquarters. 
But  while  some  on  returning  to  the  shop  resimied  work, 
others  still  refused  and  demanded  the  reinstatement  of  the 
worker.  The  Trade  Board  in  its  decision  stated  that  the 
firm  would  have  been  justified  under  the  agreement  in  dis- 
charging these  recalcitrant  ones.  Technically  speaking,  the 
firm  had  this  right  and  was  inclined  to  invoke  it,  but  prac- 
tically it  saw  an  advantage  in  leaving  discipline  of  the  offend- 
ers to  the  union. 

The  imion,  through  the  agreement,  denies  the  employer 
the  right  to  discharge  automatically  workers  who  participate 
in  a  stoppage,  except  in  aggravated  instances  like  the  one 
just  cited  where  they  fail  to  return  within  a  specified  time 
of  being  ordered  back  by  the  union.  The  organization  is 
therefore  under  the  obligation  as  well  as  under  the  incentive 
to  see  that  its  orders  to  such  workers  to  resume  work  are 
obeyed.  Stoppages  are  in  violation  of  the  agreement.  The 
union  is  as  much  concerned  as  the  employer  in  making  sure 
that  the  agreement  is  lived  up  to.  The  power  to  enforce 
observance  by  its  members  of  the  terms  of  the  agreement, 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  263 

i.e.,  its  disciplinary  control  over  the  membership,  is  indirectly 
involved.  It  is  the  basis  for  the  union's  claim  that  it  is  able 
to  carry  out  the  obligations  assumed  by  it  under  the  agree- 
ment. Upon  that  control  over  its  own  members,  moreover, 
rests  the  right  of  the  union  to  protect  against  automatic  dis- 
charge those  of  their  members  who  violate  the  agreement  by 
taking  part  in  stoppages. 

The  habit  of  resorting  to  stoppages  of  work  is  still  fairly 
strong  among  the  rank  and  file  of  clothing  workers.  It  is 
the  habit  of  striking  or  striking  back  when  the  method  of 
peaceful  adjustment  seems  too  roundabout  or  too  slow.  It 
is  this  impatience  or  lack  of  confidence  in  the  processes  of 
adjustment  by  conference  or  judicial  hearing  and  decision 
that  accounts  for  much  of  the  difficulty  union  officials  meet 
in  ordering  workers  to  abandon  a  stoppage.  Nevertheless, 
the  total  elimination  of  stoppages  is  now  an  avowed  purpose 
of  the  organization.  It  places  sufficient  confidence  in  the 
workings  of  the  impartial  machinery  as  an  instrument  of 
justice  to  be  willing  to  disarm  to  this  extent.  Furthermore, 
it  is  committed  to  carry  out  this  policy  of  its  own  initiative 
and  actively  to  support  the  impartial  machinery  in  its  efforts 
to  the  same  end.  The  task  of  abolishing  stoppages,  however, 
is  not  to  be  accomplished  by  fiat  or  resolution.  It  means 
uprooting  habits  of  long  standing — ^mental  habits  bred  by 
bitter  experience  in  the  years  when  nothing  but  an  open  show 
of  force  would  avail  against  the  employer's  force.  It  is  a 
task  of  education  requiring  time  and  effort  rather  than  severe 
measures  of  repression.  For,  ultimately,  it  aims  at  nothing 
less  than  preparing  the  workers  for  full  citizenship  in  the 
industry — a  citizenship  capable  of  supporting  a  civilized  shop 
government,  as  distinguished  from  the  rule  of  violence  and 
reprisal.  In  the  meantime,  the  union  is  exerting  its  authority 
and  moral  influence  to  create  this  new  attitude  on  the  part 
of  the  membership.  And  the  impartial  machinery  is  increas- 
ingly relying  on  these  educational  efforts  of  the  union  for 
the  gradual  elimination  of  stoppages  altogether. 

The  manner  in  which  the  union  acts  not  only  to  combat  an 
existing  stoppage  but  also  to  discourage  future  stoppages 


264      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

may  be  seen  from  the  following  case:^"  The  cutters  in  a 
certain  house  stopped  work  as  a  protest  against  the 
discharge  of  a  fellow  worker.  They  refused  to  resume 
though  instructed  to  do  so  by  the  shop  chairman,  the  fore- 
man, the  superintendent,  and  the  labor  manager,  and  even 
by  the  union  deputy  over  the  telephone.  It  was  not  until  the 
deputy  came  in  person  that  they  returned  to  work.  The 
Trade  Board  in  its  opinion  on  the  case  declared :  "  Every 
stoppage  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  agreement.  The  Trade 
Board  is  determined  to  put  an  end  to  stoppages  and  has 
every  confidence  that  the  union  will  co-operate  to  that  end. 
In  this  case  the  union  deputy  has  held  a  shop  meeting  and 
exacted  a  promise  from  every  worker  that  a  stoppage  would 
not  be  participated  in  again." 

Inasmuch  as  the  transfer  of  disciplinary  power  from  the 
employer  to  the  impartial  machinery  takes  place  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  rule  of  reason  and  law,  it  follows  that  the  union 
itself  must  bow  to  this  new  authority.  The  union  no  less 
than  the  employer  becomes  subject  to  the  law  of  the  industry 
as  it  is  laid  down  in  the  agreement  and  developed  through 
the  decisions  of  the  impartial  chairman.  The  union  no  less 
than  the  employer  becomes  accountable  to  the  impartial  ma- 
chinery, as  the  embodiment  of  the  law,  for  the  proper  en- 
forcement of  its  decisions  and  orders.  In  fact,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  an  opinion  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration,^^  "  the 
firms  and  the  deputies  are  the  agents  of  the  impartial  ma- 
chinery in  carrying  out  decisions  from  which  they  do  not 
appeal."  The  union  to  this  extent  becomes  the  custodian  of 
the  law,  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  upholding  it 
against  infraction  by  its  own  members. 

But  the  union  is  not,  primarily,  a  policeman.  It  is  first  of 
all  the  spokesman  and  defender  of  the  workers  over  against 
their  employers.  It  cannot  be  expected,  therefore,  to  take 
the  initiative  in  shop  discipline,  except  where  the  integrity 
of  the  agreement  is  involved.  In  that  case,  the  union  inter- 
venes to  protect  its  members  against  themselves.  Its  func- 
tion as  disciplinarian — apart  from  maintaining  organization 
discipline  within — is,  rather,  that  of  putting  into  effect  meas- 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  265 

ures  ordered  or  recommended  by  the  Trade  Board  against 
its  members.  In  this  it  takes  over  what  would  otherwise  be 
a  function  of  the  employer  or  of  the  management.  Thus, 
for  example,  in  a  case  where  the  Trade  Board  had  decreed 
a  fine  against  a  group  of  cutters  for  an  unlawful  stoppage, 
the  fine  was  to  be  deducted  from  their  wages  by  the  em- 
ployer. The  union  appealed  the  case  to  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration,*^ with  the  result  that  this  Board  ruled  that  "  with 
reference  to  the  method  of  collecting  fines,  it  may  well  be 
that  it  would  be  better  to  collect  them  through  the  shop  chair- 
man or  the  union  than  through  the  firm  as  has  tended  to 
become  customary  in  this  market." 

In  another  case^^  a  cutter  asked  for  a  release,  and  on  be- 
ing refused  instead  of  taking  the  matter  up  with  his 
shop  chairman  tried  to  invite  discharge  by  threatening  and 
insulting  the  foreman.  The  Trade  Board  in  pointing  out 
that  mere  discharge  would  not  be  discipline  in  this  case,  since 
it  would  but  meet  the  cutter's  request,  ordered  that  he  be 
discharged  and  directed  the  union  not  to  transfer  him  to  an- 
other cutting  room  for  a  period  of  four  days  thereafter. 

In  other  situations  the  co-operation  of  the  union  with  the 
impartial  machinery  takes  the  form  of  education  and  advice 
rather  than  of  punishment  of  delinquent  workers.  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  a  certain  stoppage,^^  the  Trade  Board  found 
that  "  a  number  of  the  workers  in  this  case  claimed  that  they 
did  not  know  of  the  provision  against  stoppages.  If  this  is 
true,"  the  chairman  observed,  "  the  union  should  be  at  pains 
to  see  to  it  that  every  worker  is  acquainted  with  the  terms 
of  the  agreement  and  the  method  of  procedure  in  case  of 
complaint."  In  dealing  with  another  stoppage,^^  the  Trade 
Board,  after  reprimanding  the  workers  participating  in  it, 
charged  the  union  with  "  the  responsibility  of  impressing 
upon  them  that  stoppages  are  in  violation  of  the  agreement 
and  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  organization."  And 
then,  referring  to  the  low  morale  in  the  shop,  the  Board  con- 
cluded: "  The  union  is  seeking  to  co-operate  with  the  firm 
in  bringing  about  better  discipline.  This  *  *  *  should 
be  kept  constantly  in  mind  and  emphasized  to  the  workers 


266      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

at  shop  meetings."  In  still  another  stoppage  case,^'^  the 
Trade  Board,  having  ordered  the  discharge  of  several  in- 
stigators, directed  the  union  "  to  take  active  measures  to 
put  an  end  to  stoppages." 

Where  the  stoppage  grows  out  of  the  workers'  fixed  belief 
that  direct  action  is  justifiable  under  conditions  of  provoca- 
tion, the  need  for  enlightenment  at  the  hands  of  the  union 
is  particularly  urgent.  In  such  a  case,^®  the  Trade  Board 
declared  that  "  it  does  not  recognize  that  stoppages  are  ever 
justified  under  the  agreement.  These  workers  feel,  appar- 
ently, that  some  complaints  can  be  adjusted  in  no  other  way 
than  by  stopping  work.  That  attitude,  if  persisted  in,  is  as 
certain  to  undermine  effective  control  by  the  organization 
as  it  is  to  break  down  the  spirit  of  the  agreement  which  means 
nothing  if  not  the  substitution  of  orderly  processes  for  direct 
action.  It  is  clear  that  educational  work  is  badly  needed 
with  this  group  of  workers  if  they  are  to  measure  up  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Amalgamated.  The  Board  *  *  *  expects 
the  union  to  keep  constantly  before  the  workers  their  obliga- 
tions under  the  agreement." 

In  obstinate  cases,  where  a  severe  strain  is  put  on  the 
authority  of  union  officials  in  their  efforts  to  call  off  the  stop- 
page, the  imion  may  be  even  more  concerned  than  the  em- 
ployer in  the  inmiediate  success  of  these  efforts.  Such  out- 
breaks are  capable  of  shaking  the  very  foundations  of  the 
fabric  of  collective  bargaining.  For  this  rests,  after  all,  on 
the  power  of  the  organization  to  guarantee  performance  by 
its  members  of  their  obligations  under  the  agreement.  In 
cases  of  this  type,  the  Trade  Board  leaves  to  the  union's  dis- 
cretion the  specific  remedy  to  be  applied,  since  the  offense 
is  one  not  merely  against  shop  discipline  and  agreement,  but 
against  the  authority  of  the  organization  as  well.  In  one  in- 
stance of  this  sort,*^  the  deputy  came  to  the  shop  and  suc- 
ceeded in  putting  the  people  back  to  work.  He  left  the 
shop  and  in  about  five  minutes  the  people  stopped  again  and 
remained  idle  until  the  end  of  the  working  day.  After  hear- 
ing the  case  brought  by  the  employer,  the  Trade  Board 
stated  that  "  the  stoppage  was  not  only  an  act  of  contempt 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  267 

for  the  orderly  procedure  established  by  agreement,  but  was 
an  offense  against  the  organization  and  the  deputy  *  *  *. 
The  workers  deliberately  disregarded  the  instructions  of  the 
deputy  and  indulged  in  another  stoppage  as  soon  as  the 
deputy  left  the  shop.  The  organization  cannot  afford  in 
its  own  interest  to  permit  so  flagrant  a  disregard  of  authority 
to  go  unchallenged.  The  Board  places  upon  the  union  the 
responsibility  of  seeing  to  it  that  these  workers  are  not  in 
doubt  as  to  their  obligations  to  the  organization  and  imder 
the  agreement,  and  warns  the  workers  that  severe  discipline 
must  be  imposed  by  the  Trade  Board  if  the  offense  is  re- 
peated." 

In  another  stoppage  of  this  character,®*  occasioned  by  the 
employment  of  an  apprentice,  the  cutters  in  question  were 
ordered  to  resume  work  by  the  foreman,  the  shop  chairman, 
the  union  deputy  (over  the  telephone)  and  by  the  coat  shop 
deputy  in  person.  In  defiance  of  all  orders,  according  to 
the  firm's  complaint,  they  steadfastly  refused  to  work  until 
sometime  after  Union  Deputy  G.  arrived  on  the  scene.  The 
union  at  the  hearing  of  this  case  volunteered  to  apply  its 
own  discipline,  giving  assurance  to  the  Trade  Board  "  that 
a  thorough  investigation  would  be  made,  individual  respon- 
sibility determined,  and  simmiary  action  taken,  even  to  the 
extent  of  removing  from  the  cutting  room  those  found 
guilty."  The  Trade  Board,  in  acceding  to  the  union's  sug- 
gestion to  assume  the  punishment  of  its  insubordinate  mem- 
bers, pointed  out  that  "  their  offense  consisted  not  alone  in 
violating  the  agreement;  they  ignored,  in  fact,  the  acts  of 
their  own  organization  in  protesting  the  employment  of  an 
apprentice  sent  to  the  firm  by  the  organization.  Because 
of  this  the  Board  believes  that  the  organization  should  have 
the  opportunity  of  measuring  out  its  own  discipline.  It 
will  be  better  for  the  organization  and  will  accomplish,  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  agreement,  all  that  Trade  Board  disci- 
pline would  accomplish." 

As  a  result  of  such  enlargement  of  the  union's  responsibil- 
ity and  power  in  matters  of  discipline,  there  is  growing  up 
an  effective  co-operation  between  it  and  the  Trade  Board 


268     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

that  enhances  the  authority  of  both  in  the  government  of  the 
shop.  Incidentally,  it  creates  an  increasing  reliance  by  the 
Board  upon  the  organization  as  an  executive  organ  of  this 
government.  As  has  already  appeared  in  the  matter  of  stop- 
pages in  particular,  the  union's  co-operation  may  take  the 
form  not  only  of  the  direct  application  of  its  own  penalties 
to  offending  members,  but  also  of  educational  and  moral 
pressure  exerted  upon  them.  Thus,  the  union  may  offer  to 
stand  surety  for  a  member  who  otherwise  would  incur  pun- 
ishment by  order  of  the  Trade  Board,  which  punishment 
would  be  carried  out  by  the  employer.  By  way  of  illustra- 
tion, there  is  the  case  of  B,®^  a  trimmer  discharged  for  wast- 
ing time,  low  production,  and  cleaning  up  before  quitting 
time.  Though  the  evidence  against  B  was  weighty,  the  Trade 
Board  directed  his  reinstatement  on  the  strength  of  the 
union's  promise  that  he  should  cease  wasting  time,  obey 
orders,  and  increase  his  production  at  least  to  his  former 
rating. 

ORGANIZATION   DISCIPLINE— SHOP   CHAIRMEN 

As  the  principles  of  collective  bargaining  come  to  be  ap- 
plied to  more  and  more  of  the  relations  between  the  workers 
and  the  industry,  the  union  acquires  constantly  new  and 
larger  functions.  It  extends  its  control  gradually  over  all 
the  questions  of  shop  government — questions  affecting  not 
merely  the  conditions  of  work  and  pay  but  also  the  rights  and 
duties  of  the  workers  in  the  shop.  The  shop  itself  has  be- 
come the  main  theatre  for  the  union's  activity:  the  field  for 
the  exercise  of  its  rights  and  powers  on  behalf  of  its  mem- 
bers. The  rights  and  powers  of  management,  to  be  sure, 
remain  as  before  in  the  hands  of  the  employer.  But  they 
are  no  longer  exclusive  rights:  their  exercise  is  limited  at 
every  point  by  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  workers.  And 
these  rights  and  interests  are  expanding.  The  workers 
through  their  organization  are  thus  gradually  acquiring  a 
permanent  stake  in  the  industry  itself,  and  an  effective  voice 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  269 

in  its  management,  at  least  in  so  far  as  the  control  of  their 
own  lot  as  workers  is  concerned. 

But  as  the  extension  of  the  union's  function  into  the  sphere 
of  management  proceeds,  it  follows  inevitably  that  along 
with  its  new  rights  and  powers  the  union  takes  on  corre- 
sponding responsibilities  and  obligations.  These  take  the 
form  of  organization  discipline,  control  over  its  own  member- 
ship. Organization  discipHne  is  needful  from  two  points  of 
view:  that  of  conflict  with  the  employers,  and  that  of  co- 
operation with  them.  In  case  of  strike,  for  example,  the 
union  acts  as  an  army  with  centralized  command  and  willing 
support  from  the  ranks.  In  ordinary  times  this  solidarity 
is  somewhat  relaxed,  but  it  cannot  be  abandoned  entirely 
without  risk  of  losing  what  has  been  won  by  struggle  and 
sacrifice.  The  collective  agreement  registers  these  gains; 
but  it  does  not  of  itself  guarantee  their  maintenance.  The 
enforcement  of  the  agreement,  so  far  as  the  workers'  inter- 
ests are  concerned,  rests  ultimately  vdth  the  workers'  or- 
ganization. And  the  power  of  the  organization  to  make 
such  enforcement  effective  depends  upon  the  degree  of  disci- 
pline within  its  ranks.  On  the  other  hand,  the  spirit  of  the 
agreement  demands  that  while  the  workers'  rights  under  it 
are  to  be  enforced,  their  obligations  under  it  shall  also  be 
observ^ed  and  the  power  of  the  imion  shall  be  employed  if 
necessary  to  enforce  their  observance.  The  effect  of  this  is 
to  extend  the  sphere  of  organization  discipline  right  into  the 
shop  and  to  make  the  union  responsible,  in  so  far,  for  shop 
discipline,  production,  and  even  the  general  welfare  of  the 
industry  in  the  market. 

The  need  of  a  strong  and  stable  union  to  uphold  the  col- 
lective standards  of  the  industry  against  anarchic  competi- 
tion not  only  on  the  side  of  individual  employers  but  also 
of  individual  workers,  i.e.,  against  its  own  members,  is  fully 
recognized.  In  view  of  this  need  the  agreement  provides  for 
the  strengthening  and  stabilizing  of  the  union  by  various 
means.  Among  these  is  the  reinforcement  of  organization 
discipline  and  of  the  authority  of  organization  officials  at  the 
hands  of  the  impartial  machinery.    Under  the  Hart,  Schaff- 


270     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ner  and  Marx  agreement  "  the  Trade  Board  and  Board  of 
Arbitration  are  authorized  to  hear  complaints  from  the 
union  concerning  the  disciphne  of  its  members  and  to  take 
any  action  necessary  to  conserve  the  interests  of  the  Agree- 
ment." Under  this  clause  the  union  is  able  to  secure  the 
support  of  the  impartial  machinery  on  behalf  of  the  collection 
of  dues  and  assessments  from  its  delinquent  members.  The 
performance  by  a  union  worker  of  his  membership  obliga- 
tions and  his  observance  of  the  rules  of  his  organization  have 
become  a  concern  of  the  Trade  Board,  inasmuch  as  the 
strength  and  discipline  of  the  union  are  recognized  as  essen- 
tial to  the  maintenance  of  the  agreement. 

In  one  case  before  the  Trade  Board^*'  the  union  asked  for 
discipline  of  V,  a  member  who  had  failed  to  pay  his  assess- 
ment quota.  V  stated  that  he  would  pay  $10  on  account  by 
Friday  of  that  week.  His  promise  was  accepted  by  the  union 
and  the  Trade  Board,  with  the  stipulation  by  the  Board  that 
if  he  does  not  pay  $10  on  Friday  he  will  be  subject  to  dis- 
charge at  the  close  of  work  that  evening. 

A  similar  case^^  is  that  of  P,  whom  the  union  brought  be- 
fore the  Trade  Board  for  discipline  for  refusing  to  pay  his 
dues  and  assessments.  The  Trade  Board  was  not  impressed 
by  the  excuses  that  P  gave  for  failure  to  pay,  as  he  was  evi- 
dently in  better  financial  condition  than  most  of  the  workers. 
The  Trade  Board  therefore  directed  that  P  was  to  go  to  the 
union  office  and  pay  his  back  dues  and  assessments  by  Mon- 
day evening  and  was  to  secure  an  O.  K.  to  that  effect  from 
the  deputy  before  being  permitted  to  work  Tuesday  morning. 

In  another  case^^  the  union  requested  the  discharge  of  a 
trimmer  who  had  been  suspended  from  the  union  for  refusing 
to  pay  a  fine  duly  imposed  by  the  organization.  The  firm 
protested  that  the  worker  had  been  fined  for  "  refusing  to 
obey  an  order  of  the  assistant  shop  chairman,  which  order 
was  contrary  to  an  order  of  the  foreman."  The  Trade  Board, 
in  granting  the  union's  request,  found  "  nothing  unreasonable 
in  the  rule  of  the  union  that  workers  must  carry  out  the  in- 
structions of  the  shop  chairman  or  shop  representative.  On 
the  contrary,  the  union  cannot  maintain  discipline  otherwise." 


Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members,  Pant  Makers 
Local  144 


^^^■pp^^^W^^P^M 

5^ 

Officers  and  Executive  Board  Members,  Vest  Makers 
Local  154 


b 

I^K^    --^^^^HH 

^i«^  H          m 

ti 

3 

E 

|f^^ 

Officers  and  Executive  Board  ^Members,  Cloth  Exam- 
iners and  Spongers  Local  271 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  271 

and  the  union's  right  of  discipline  over  its  members  who 
fail  to  carry  out  the  rules  of  the  organization  was  sustained 
by  the  Trade  Board  on  the  ground  that,  without  it,  "  there 
is  no  assurance  that  it  can  maintain  that  degree  of  control 
essential  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  agreement."  The  Board 
accordingly  ruled  that  the  trimmer  in  question  "  may  not  be 
employed  by  this  firm  at  this  time  unless  he  is  reinstated  as 
a  member  of  the  union." 

Not  only  does  the  impartial  machinery  strengthen  the 
union's  hand  in  matters  of  internal  control,  but  also  in  the 
case  of  shop  chairmen  who  fail  in  their  duties  as  officials  is 
the  union  given  fairly  broad  discretion  in  the  application 
of  its  own  discipline.  The  shop  chairman  being  accountable 
for  his  conduct  in  the  shop  to  the  organization,  insofar  as 
he  acts  in  his  official  capacity,  it  is  expedient  to  charge  the 
organization  with  his  discipline.  In  a  Trade  Board  case^^ 
involving  this  question  of  the  union's  right  to  impose  its  own 
discipline  upon  a  shop  chairman  who  had  employed  abusive 
language  to  a  fellow  worker  in  the  shop,  the  Board  ruled  as 
follows:  "  The  Trade  Board  has  gone  on  record  previously 
as  favoring  discipline  by  the  union  through  its  own  agencies 
in  cases  involving  the  relationship  of  union  members  and 
where  there  is  indication  that  the  discipline  will  be  effective. 
It  is  as  much  to  the  interest  of  the  union  as  to  the  interest  of 
the  firm  to  see  to  it  that  the  shop  chairman  enjoys  the  confi- 
dence and  respect  of  his  fellow-workers.  The  Trade  Board 
directs  that  the  union  advise  the  action  taken  by  the  Execu- 
tive Board  with  respect  to  the  charge  *  *  *." 

In  an  opinion  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration^*  approving 
this  policy,  it  declared  that  "  the  Trade  Board  has  acted 
wisely  in  withholding  decisions  in  some  cases  in  order  to  give 
the  union  opportunity  to  make  a  needed  change  (in  its  shop 
representative),  for  this  gives  the  best  assurance  against  un- 
wise selections  to  fill  a  vacancy  *  *  *." 

Since  the  shop  chairman  is  responsible  to  the  organization 
for  his  conduct  as  an  official,  his  discipline  is  to  that  extent 
a  matter  of  internal  discipline.  But  even  in  his  capacity  as 
worker  the  behavior  of  the  shop  chairman  is  of  concern  to 


272      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  union,  and  his  discipline  at  least  partly  under  its  control. 
A  case  in  point^*  is  that  of  J,  a  shop  chairman,  who  was  dis- 
charged by  the  firm  after  having  been  caught  "  fooling 
around  "  a  number  of  times.  The  Trade  Board  found  that 
discipline  had  been  lax  in  that  department  and  that  "  horse- 
play "  and  fooling  around  had  been  engaged  in.  The  Board 
nevertheless  disallowed  the  discharge  on  the  ground  that  al- 
though J  had  been  falling  down  as  shop  chairman,  these  facts 
had  not  been  "  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  union,  as  is 
expected  in  the  case  of  shop  chairmen.  The  evidence  shows 
that  J's  record  was  carefully  followed  by  the  deputy  for  two 
or  three  months  after  he  was  sent  into  this  place  and  that 
he  was  reported  to  be  satisfactory.  The  firm  has  not  in- 
formed the  deputy  of  any  change  in  the  record,  and  this 
is  expected  in  the  case  of  shop  chairmen." 

The  question  of  disciplinary  jurisdiction  over  union  offi- 
cials in  the  shop  came  up  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration'® 
on  request  by  the  Trade  Board  for  an  interpretation  of  the 
clause  in  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement,  which 
reads  as  follows :  "  Complaint  against  members  of  the  Trade 
Board  as  workmen  are  to  be  made  by  the  foreman  to  the 
Trade  Board."  The  company  contended  that  this  clause  did 
not  render  a  shop  chairman  immune  to  suspension  for 
breaches  of  discipline  and  misconduct,  as  contrasted  with 
complaint  as  to  his  work.  The  Board  of  Arbitration  decided 
unanimously  that  the  above  procedure  should  apply  to  all 
cases  of  complaint  against  shop  chairmen  as  workmen,  and 
stated :  "  This  extension  of  the  procedure  is  intended  to  give 
additional  dignity  to  the  union  officials  in  order  that  they 
may  co-operate  more  efficiently  in  carrying  out  the  purposes 
of  the  agreement  *  *  *."  In  a  later  decision,'^  dealing  with 
a  case  on  appeal,  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
took  occasion  to  urge  upon  all  labor  managers  in  the  market 
that  "  in  the  cases  of  discipline  which  involve  shop  chairmen 
they  shall  proceed  by  filing  charges  before  the  Trade  Board 
rather  than  by  summary  action.  In  many  cases,  of  course, 
the  best  method  will  be  to  proceed  by  bringing  the  matter 
first  of  all  to  the  attention  of  the  union  deputy." 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  273 

By  thus  removing  shop  chairmen  for  all  practical  purposes 
from  the  disciplinary  control  of  the  employer,  the  union  gains 
greater  freedom  of  action  in  the  shop — a  freedom  of  action 
that  is  necessary  in  the  interest  of  efficient  administration  of 
the  agreement.  Besides  this  immunity  to  company  disci- 
pHne,  the  shop  chairman  enjoys  certain  rights  and  preroga- 
tives that  pertain  to  his  office  and  in  which  he  is  protected  by 
the  impartial  machinery.  These  rights  and  prerogatives, 
conceded  to  him  in  the  name  of  the  organization,  extend  to 
all  matters  of  organization  business  that  must  be  transacted 
on  the  floor  of  the  shop.  On  this  point  the  Hart,  Schaifner 
and  Marx  agreement  provides,  in  part,  as  follows :  "  The 
union  shall  have  in  each  shop  a  duly  accredited  representa- 
tive authorized  by  the  Joint  Board  who  shall  be  recognized 
as  the  officer  of  the  union  having  charge  of  complaints  and 
organization  matters  within  the  shop  *  *  *.  It  is  under- 
stood the  shop  representative  shall  be  entitled  to  collect  dues 
and  perform  such  other  duties  as  may  be  imposed  on  him 
by  the  Union,  provided  they  be  performed  in  such  manner 
as  not  to  interfere  with  shop  discipline  and  efficiency." 

Claiming  the  protection  of  this  provision  of  the  agreement 
for  all  workers  in  the  market,  the  union  complained  in  one 
instance^^  of  the  rule  of  a  firm  requiring  the  special  sanction 
of  the  labor  manager  for  the  distribution  by  the  shop  chair- 
man during  working  hours  of  any  printed  matter,  appeals 
for  contributions,  etc.  The  Trade  Board  ruled  that  "  with 
reference  to  collections  other  than  of  union  dues  and  assess- 
ments, there  should  be  none  made  on  the  floor  except  for 
such  cases  or  causes  as  are  approved  by  the  representatives 
of  the  Union  and  the  firm."  As  regards  the  giving  out  of 
handbills  in  the  shop,  however,  the  Board  observed  that  "  a 
shop  chairman  naturally  dislikes  to  be  placed  in  the  position 
of  having  official  announcements  of  his  organization  passed 
on,  even  as  a  formal  matter,  by  a  labor  manager.  The  Trade 
Board  feels  that  the  firm's  rule  should  be  revised  so  as  not  to 
apply  to  the  distribution  of  announcements  of  union  meet- 
ings, classes,  concerts,  lectures  and  (union)   elections." 

In  another  case"^  a  firm  brought  complaint  against  a  shop 


274      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

chairman  for  unnecessary  activity  on  the  floor  of  the  shop 
during  working  hours,  specifically  for  selling  union  picnic 
tickets  to  the  workers.  In  disallowing  the  firm's  complaint, 
the  Trade  Board  held  that  "  Tickets  for  the  annual  picnic 
of  the  Union  were  disposed  of  to  workers  in  all  the  shops  in 
the  market.  It  may  be  regarded  as  union  business  and  the 
rule  (that  the  conduct  of  union  business  is  not  to  interfere 
with  shop  efficiency),  applies." 

Most  of  the  rights  and  powers  accorded  by  the  agreement 
to  the  union  in  the  shop  are  exercised  by  the  shop  chairman. 
It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  shop  chairman  enjoys  a 
special  position  among  workers  with  reference  to  discipline 
and  discharge,  which  in  his  case  rests  with  the  Trade  Board 
and  the  union.  In  so  far  as  his  official  duties  require,  more- 
over, he  is  entitled  to  special  consideration  in  respect  to  his 
production  or  output.  The  minimum  standard,  to  be  sure, 
is  fixed  for  him  as  for  any  other  worker  by  the  record  made 
during  his  probationary  period  on  the  job.  For  "  the  shop 
chairman  is  a  worker,  and  if  he  is  going  to  be  a  good  chair- 
man he  must  be  a  good,  conscientious  worker."  But  an  al- 
lowance is  made  in  his  favor  on  account  of  time  spent  by  him 
in  conducting  necessary  union  business  during  working 
hours.  In  one  case^'^  the  firm  requested  the  discharge  of  a 
shop  chairman  on  the  ground  that  his  production  had  fallen 
considerably  below  his  probationary  performance.  The 
Trade  Board  ruled  that  "  the  firm  has  a  right  to  expect  him 
to  maintain  that  standard  when  the  work  is  on  the  floor. 
Some  allowance  should  be  made  on  account  of  his  being  shop 
chairman,  but  this  should  not  aflPect  his  production  materially. 
The  Trade  Board  directs  that  he  be  placed  on  probation  with 
the  explicit  understanding  that  he  is  to  come  up  to  the  stan- 
dard *  *  *  less  an  allowance  because  of  his  duties  as 
shop  chairman." 

Obviously,  such  an  allowance  cannot  cover  more  than  this. 
It  cannot  be  used  to  shield  a  shop  chairman  from  the  con- 
sequences of  inefficiency  as  a  workman.  In  one  case,®^  the 
company  asked  for  the  discharge  of  P,  a  shop  chairman  in 
the  cutting  room,  basing  its  request  on  P's  production  rec- 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  275 

ord.  The  company  considered  his  falling  off  in  production 
so  unexplainable  as  to  indicate  deliberate  waste  of  effort 
on  his  part.  The  Trade  Board,  however,  held  that  if  P's 
lack  of  production  was  due  to  his  official  duties,  as  he  claimed, 
that  could  be  made  manifest  by  relieving  him  of  his  official 
responsibilities,  thus  enabling  him  to  give  all  his  time  to 
cutting.  The  Trade  Board  accordingly  recommended  "that 
P  be  withdrawn  as  a  union  official  and  given  the  same  status 
as  a  regular  cutter.  This  should  enable  him  to  recover  his 
former  production." 

In  a  similar  case,®^  the  company  complained  of  one  F, 
shop  steward,  on  the  ground  of  habitual  tardiness  and  low 
production,  and  requested  discipline.  On  the  basis  of  his 
production  record,  which  was  far  below  average,  the  Trade 
Board  was  of  the  opinion  that  "  F's  low  production  cannot 
be  accounted  for  except  on  two  grounds:  either  he  is  delib- 
erately laying  down  on  his  work  or  he  spends  so  much  time 
on  his  duties  as  a  union  official  as  to  reduce  his  production 
so  seriously.  In  view  of  this  consideration,  the  Trade  Board 
recommends  that  F  be  withdrawn  by  the  union  as  shop  stew- 
ard and  be  given  an  opportunity  to  advance  his  production 
without  being  hindered  by  any  official  duties.  This  should 
also  improve  his  record  for  tardiness." 

The  scope  of  the  shop  chairman's  authority  as  representa- 
tive of  the  workers  in  relation  to  the  management  is  defined 
broadly  in  the  agreement  in  these  terms:  "  He  shall  be  em- 
powered to  receive  complaints  and  be  given  sufficient  oppor- 
tunity and  range  of  action  to  enable  him  to  make  proper  in- 
quiry concerning  them."  Questions  frequently  arise  over 
the  limits  of  his  authority  in  practice,  where  it  confficts  with 
the  authority  of  the  foreman  or  other  representatives  of  man- 
agement. Thus,  in  one  case,®^  where  the  employer  had  com- 
plained of  a  shop  chairman  giving  orders  to  the  people  con- 
trary to  the  orders  of  the  management,  the  Trade  Board 
ruled  that  a  shop  chairman  "  should  know  that  he  has  no 
authority  to  contradict  or  countermand  orders  of  the  man- 
agement, but  he  has  full  right  to  complain  and  protest 
against  an  order."    In  another  case^*  the  Trade  Board  held 


276      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

that  "  the  shop  chairman  has  no  business  to  ring  the  bell  '* 
at  quitting  time,  this  being  the  function  of  the  time-keeper. 
Furthermore,  "  a  shop  chairman  is  not  to  run  around  the 
shop  looking  for  or  making  trouble." 

In  the  matter  of  disputed  work,  for  example,  "  a  shop 
chairman  is  presumed  only  to  take  up  cases  brought  to  his 
attention  with  a  request,  not  to  take  the  initiative  in  holding 
for  investigation."  "  But  he  does  have  the  right  to  take  up 
complaints  of  workers  on  the  floor,  and,  if  necessary,  to  leave 
his  place  of  work  to  do  so."  In  the  words  of  a  Trade  Board 
decision,*^  "  Shop  chairmen  under  the  agreement  have  the 
right  to  transact  union  business  on  the  floor  of  their  factory, 
and  if  this  business  requires  them  to  go  to  another  factory  (of 
the  same  firm ) ,  undoubtedly  permission  can  be  gotten,  but  it 
must  be  applied  for,  and  cannot  be  assumed.  A  shop  chair- 
man possessing  authority  as  an  official  of  his  union  can 
always  afford  to  be  courteous  and  observe  the  rules  of  the 
game.  If  a  reasonable  request  is  refused  he  can  bring  com- 
plaint." And  on  his  part,  in  all  his  relations  with  the  manage- 
ment, he  is  entitled  to  recognition  and  courteous  treatment  :^® 
"  The  shop  chairman  is  to  be  dealt  with  as  the  representative 
of  the  workers  and  accorded  the  same  courtesy  that  repre- 
sentatives of  the  firm  have  a  right  to  expect." 

The  rights  and  powers  of  the  shop  chairman,  however, 
are  not  personal  privileges  and  immunities  enjoyed  by  him 
as  an  individual.  They  are  directly  related  to  his  duties 
and  responsibilities  as  a  representative  of  the  union  in  the 
shop.  Thus,  while  the  shop  chairman  may,  when  necessary, 
**  leave  his  place  to  investigate  complaints,"  this  right  is 
qualified  by  considerations  of  general  discipline  and  effi- 
ciency in  the  shops.  For  "  the  foreman  may,  if  he  deems  it 
necessary,  ask  to  be  informed  of  the  purpose  of  his  move- 
ments, and  the  representative  (shop  chairman)  shall  comply 
with  his  request."  The  agreement  contemplates,  moreover, 
that  the  relations  of  the  shop  chairman  to  the  management 
shall  be  dignified  and  mutually  helpful  rather  than  strained 
or  based  on  a  contest  of  authority  and  technical  rights.  In 
any  situation  involving  friction  between  the  workers  and  the 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  277 

firm,  the  shop  chairman's  function  is  to  uphold  orderly  pro- 
cedure as  against  direct  action.  "It  is  expected,"  declares 
the  agreement,  "  that  he  will  represent  the  cooperative  spirit 
of  the  agreement  in  the  shop,  and  shall  be  the  leader  in  pro- 
moting that  amity  and  spirit  of  good  will  which  it  is  the 
purpose  of  this  instrument  to  establish." 

In  a  case  before  the  Trade  Board*®  a  firm  complained  of 
a  shop  chairman  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  cooperation  and 
general  incompetence.  The  Board,  after  concluding  from 
the  evidence  that  this  official  had  not  taken  the  proper  atti- 
tude toward  the  management,  but  had  magnified  his  author- 
ity, declared  that  "  a  shop  chairman  should  be  able  to  pro- 
tect the  interests  of  the  workers  at  every  point  and  at  the 
same  time  convince  the  management  of  his  fairness  and 
willingness  to  cooperate  *  *  *.  When  a  worker  is  in  the 
wrong,  it  is  as  much  the  duty  of  the  shop  chairman  to  tell 
him  so  as  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  shop  chairman  to 
defend  the  worker  when  the  firm  is  in  the  wrong."  As  a 
representative  of  the  organization,  the  shop  chairman  is  ex- 
pected to  uphold  both  purposes  of  the  agreement:  that  of 
efficient  production  as  well  as  that  of  an  efficient  union,  and 
both  are  to  be  promoted  by  methods  of  reasonable  adjust- 
ment. 

Among  the  various  duties  of  the  shop  chairman  is  that  of 
forestalling  resort  to  direct  action  or  other  infractions  of 
the  agreement  by  the  workers  in  the  shop.  Many  stoppages, 
for  example,  are  due  to  the  workers'  fear,  sometimes  un- 
founded, that  the  employer  is  trying  to  "  put  something 
over."  Whenever,  in  particular,  the  management  under- 
takes to  put  into  operation  some  new  or  changed  method  of 
work  that  might  conceivably  affect  the  workers'  standards, 
their  suspicion  and  consequently  their  opposition  are 
promptly  aroused.  The  innovation  may  be  trivial  or  its 
effect  on  earnings  may  have  been  foreseen  by  the  firm  and 
duly  referred  to  the  price  committee  for  adjustment  of  the 
piece  rate.  But  this  is  not  sufficient.  Tbe  workers  affected 
by  the  change  must  be  informed  of  whatever  joint  arrange- 
ment has  been  made,  if  any,  between  the  firm  and  the  union 


278      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

representative.  They  must  be  assured  that  their  interests 
are  fully  safeguarded  under  the  new  method  and  that  they 
are  justified  in  doing  the  work  as  ordered.  This  is  the  duty 
of  the  shop  chairman  in  the  situation,  he  being  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  union  on  the  ground.  It  is  for  him  to  com- 
municate to  the  people  in  the  shop  the  action  of  the  union  on 
their  behalf,  so  that  there  be  no  misunderstanding  and  no 
interruption  of  work.  If  he  is  efficient  in  protecting  the 
workers'  interests  at  every  critical  juncture,  there  need  be  no 
attempt  on  their  part  to  take  matters  into  their  own  hands. 

To  illustrate:®^  A  firm  complained  of  a  stoppage  by  its 
brushers,  who  had  refused  to  baste  vents.  The  deputy  and 
the  firm  had  agreed  a  week  before  on  a  price  for  this  new 
work.  Though  the  shop  chairman  was  informed  of  the  price 
agreed  upon  he  failed  to  explain  it  to  the  brushers,  hence 
their  refusal  to  do  the  work  when  ordered.  The  chairman 
of  the  Trade  Board  stated  at  the  hearing  that  "  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  workers  should  not  have  been  advised  ex- 
plicitly what  they  were  to  do  and  what  they  were  to  receive 
for  doing  it.  The  shop  chairman  had  ample  time  to  do  this 
but  whether  from  indifference  or  ignorance  as  to  his  duties, 
made  no  attempt  to  prepare  the  workers  for  the  additional 
operation  and  seemingly  made  little  effort  to  end  the  mis- 
understanding after  it  had  arisen."  And,  then,  by  way  of 
impressing  upon  the  shop  chairman  his  responsibility  in  such 
situations,  the  chairman  of  the  Board  concluded:  "  If  this  is 
a  fair  sample  of  the  way  he  measures  up  as  shop  chairman, 
the  union  will  do  well  to  see  to  it  that  he  is  replaced  by  a 
worker  who  has  more  initiative  and  some  sense  of  the  re- 
sponsibility that  attaches  to  the  office  of  shop  chairman." 

In  another  case,®®  where  stoppage  was  occasioned  by  the 
employment  of  an  assistant  foreman]  previously  employed  by 
a  non-union  house,  the  shop  chairman  and  the  deputy  were 
censured  by  the  Trade  Board  for  failure  to  prevent  it.  The 
Board  found  that  "  what  this  shop  needs  is  stronger  leader- 
ship— someone  who  will  impress  upon  the  workers  that  com- 
plaints are  not  to  be  adjusted  by  stoppages;  and  who  is  con- 
stantly on  the  job  to  prevent  trouble." 


DISCIPLINE  AND  DISCHARGE  279 

The  shop  chairman  is  at  all  times  and  under  all  circum- 
stances bound  to  use  his  authority  for  law  and  order  as  em- 
bodied in  the  agreement.  For  him  to  order  a  stoppage  or  to 
incite  it  in  any  manner  is  a  misuse  of  his  power  and  a  viola- 
tion of  his  trust  as  an  official.  In  one  instance  of  this  kind,®* 
the  Trade  Board  held  that  "  the  shop  chairman  knows  that 
stoppages  are  forbidden  by  agreement,  but  seems  to  feel  that 
in  cases  of  extreme  provocation  there  is  nothing  else  to  do 
but  display  authority.  This  attitude  cannot  be  permitted  on 
the  part  of  a  shop  chairman  who  is  supposed  to  be  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  organization  in  the  shop  and  to  be  zealous 
in  upholding  orderly  procedure." 

Corresponding  to  the  right  accorded  the  shop  chairman  by 
the  agreement  to  be  "  recognized  as  the  officer  of  the  union 
having  charge  of  complaints  *  *  *  within  the  shop," 
he  is  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  taking  up  with  the 
management  all  complaints  of  fellow  workers  brought  to 
his  attention.  The  individual  bargaining  that  once  obtained 
between  foreman  or  superintendent  and  the  particular  worker 
complaining  or  complained  of,  easily  led  to  injustice  and 
recrimination  or  even  to  personal  violence.  Today  the  worker 
is  represented  by  his  shop  chairman,  who  not  only  under- 
stands the  concrete  background  of  the  complaint  but  also 
stands  on  the  jointly  accepted  principles  of  the  agreement, 
and  can,  if  necessary,  appeal  to  the  power  of  the  union  and 
the  impartial  machinery  to  back  him  up.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  worker  has  no  justification  or  need  for  re- 
sorting to  direct  action  in  any  form  in  cases  of  dispute  with 
the  foreman.  When  such  clashes  do  occur,  they  are  fre- 
quently due  to  some  failure  on  the  part  of  the  shop  chairman 
either  to  be  called  in  or  to  function  properly  as  an  official 
of  the  union.  The  latter  situation  is  illustrated  in  the  case 
of  a  cutter®"  discharged  after  an  altercation  with  the  foreman 
over  his  production.  At  the  hearing  the  shop  chairman  sup- 
ported the  cutter's  testimony  that  he  worked  steadily  and 
honestly  at  his  board,  also  that  the  cutter  came  to  him  com- 
plaining that  the  foreman  "  picked  on  him  "  and  the  chair- 
man approved  of  the  cutter  going  over  to  tell  the  foreman 


280      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

so  and  to  challenge  him  to  "  lay  off."  The  Trade  Board 
ruled  that  the  shop  chairman  had  no  business  to  permit  the 
cutter  to  go  over  to  the  foreman  and  talk  as  he  did.  "  If 
the  man  thought  he  was  being  picked  on,  the  chairman  should 
have  handled  his  complaint.  The  chairman's  statement  that 
he  thought  it  of  no  importance  is  not  a  satisfactory  explana- 
tion." The  worker's  quarrel  with  the  foreman  became  a  con- 
cern of  the  union  as  soon  as  it  was  reported  to  the  shop  chair- 
man, and  thereafter  the  union  would  bear  the  responsibility 
for  the  consequences. 


CHAPTER  XII 

PROTECTION  OF  WORKING  CONDITIONS 

The  record  given  in  the  foregoing  pages  of  the  growth 
of  constitutional  checks  upon  the  employer's  discharge  power 
means,  from  the  worker's  point  of  view,  the  achievement  of 
a  presumptive  right  to  the  job.  This  right  is  of  prime  im- 
portance and  serves  as  a  foundation  for  other  rights  that 
have  been  built  upon  it.  The  conditions  that  make  the  job 
a  thing  worth  defending  have  themselves  to  be  defended. 
In  the  present  chapter  it  is  intended  to  trace  the  development 
of  the  worker's  right  to  the  maintenance  of  the  conditions 
and  standards  of  his  work.  Those  working  conditions  and 
standards  are  particularly  exposed  to  a  nibbling  process 
Avhenever  a  change  is  ordered  in  the  worker's  assignment  or 
method  of  operation  within  the  factory.  Accordingly,  it  is 
at  such  points  that  the  union  has  struggled  and  succeeded 
in  estabhshing  the  principle  of  protection  for  the  worker's 
tenure  of  his  job  and  for  the  customary  conditions  of  his 
job  against  deterioration. 

THE    TRANSFER   OF   WORKERS 

Among  the  administrative  functions  expressly  reserved  to 
the  employer  by  the  agreement  is  that  of  transferring  work- 
ers within  the  establishment.  The  transfer  may  be  made 
from  one  operation  or  section  to  another,  from  one  method 
of  work  to  another  at  a  given  operation,  or  under  certain  con- 
ditions from  one  form  of  compensation  to  another.  The 
exercise  by  the  employer  of  his  power  of  transfer  is,  however^ 
limited  by  consideration  of  the  worker's  rights  and  interests 
under  the  agreement.  It  is  limited  and  controlled  very  much 
as  are  other  administrative  powers  of  management  affecting 
workers,  such  as  the  power  of  discipline,  of  lay-off,  etc. 
While  the  use  of  the  right  of  transfer  within  these  constitu- 
tional limits  does  not  require  justification  by  the  employer, 


282     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

at  least  the  implicit  assumption  in  every  case  is  that  it  serves 
the  ends  of  efficiency.     In  the  language  of  the  agreement, 

"  The  company  has  the  right  to  transfer  employes  for  pur- 
poses of  administration  or  discipline,  subject  to  review  by  the 
Trade  Board.  If  the  Board  finds  that  any  transfer  is  being 
made  to  lower  wages,  or  for  any  discrimination  or  improper 
purpose,  or  if  injustice  is  being  done  the  worker  by  the  transfer, 
the  Board  may  adjust  the  complaint." 

The  right  to  transfer  workers  for  purposes  of  discipline 
is  occasionally  invoked  by  employers  in  preference  to  the 
harsher  penalty  of  suspension.  In  view  of  the  safeguards 
against  abuse  erected  in  the  clause  of  the  agreement  just 
cited,  it  confers  on  the  management  no  perilous  power  over 
the  worker's  conditions  of  employment.  Even  when  transfer 
takes  the  form  of  a  shift  from  week-work  to  piece-work,  it 
must  not  have  the  effect  of  reducing  the  worker's  earnings. 
The  natural  tendency  of  such  a  change  is  to  stimulate  him  to 
greater  eflPort  in  his  work  and  to  increase  production.  But 
so  long  as  it  does  not  unduly  "  speed  up  "  the  worker  in  the 
attempt  to  make  his  customary  wage,  it  is  often  the  most 
appropriate  remedy  against  slacking. 

In  an  early  case^^  involving  this  use  of  the  power  of 
transfer  and  decided  on  appeal  by  Mr.  Williams,  the  issue 
presented  itself  in  this  form :  "  Has  the  company  a  right  to 
transfer  a  worker  for  disciplinary  purposes,  especially  to 
check  '  soldiering,'  from  week- work  to  piece-work?"  And 
the  conclusion  was  that  "  in  the  opinion  of  the  chairman  the 
company  has  the  right,  subject  to  review  by  the  Trade  Board. 
The  facts  in  any  such  case  may  be  investigated  by  the  Board, 
and  if  it  is  found  that  the  transfer  is  being  made  to  lower 
wages,  or  for  any  discriminatory  or  improper  purpose,  or  if 
injustice  is  being  done  the  worker  by  such  transfer,  the  Board 
may  take  such  action  as  in  its  judgment  is  necessary  to  give 
justice  to  the  worker,  whether  by  adjusting  his  earnings  in 
the  new  position  or  by  reinstating  him  in  his  old  position." 

When  workers  are  transferred  for  administrative  reasons 
from  the  shop  to  a  corresponding  operation  in  another  shop 
of  the  same  firm,  they  are  obliged  to  accept  the  conditions 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  283 

and  specifications  of  work  obtaining  in  the  section  to  which 
they  are  assigned.  The  only  limitation  imposed  on  the  em- 
ployer in  this  connection  is  that  the  workers'  wages  shall  not 
be  lowered  in  consequence  of  the  transfer,  and  their  interests 
generally  shall  not  be  injured.  In  a  case  before  the  Trade 
Board® ^  the  imion.  asked  for  reinstatement  with  back  pay  of 
five  second  basters  discharged  for  refusing  to  baste  coats 
according  to  the  method  used  in  the  shop  to  which  they  had 
been  transferred.  The  company  claimed  it  was  simply  seek- 
ing to  secure  conformity  to  the  practice  in  this  shop  and  was 
following  a  recognized  usage  which  requires  the  person  who 
is  transferred  to  adopt  the  practice  of  the  shop  to  which  he  is 
transferred.  While  directing  the  reinstatement  of  the  men, 
the  Trade  Board  denied  the  request  of  the  union  for  back 
pay,  on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  treat  the  claim  other 
than  in  similar  cases  in  the  past  when  a  dispute  had  arisen 
about  a  specification  and  the  usage  in  a  shop.  *'  In  this  in- 
stance the  standard  usage,  as  well  as  the  language  of  the 
specifications,  so  far  as  it  is  definite,  supports  the  company's 
position." 

The  transfer  of  a  worker  from  one  shop  to  another  involv- 
ing no  material  change  in  work  or  pay  is  clearly  within  the 
sphere  of  executive  action  by  management.  If  the  worker 
thus  transferred  believes  himself  disadvantaged  in  any  re- 
spect, he  may,  of  course,  bring  complaint  through  the  regular 
channels.  The  case  is  somewhat  different  when  the  transfer 
is  made  from  one  section  to  another,  thus  entailing  a  change 
of  work  and  earnings  for  the  worker.  If  the  new  work  is  un- 
familiar, the  problem  presented  is  analogous  to  that  where  a 
major  change  of  work  is  introduced  in  the  section  that  neces- 
sitates a  period  of  learning  or  re-adaptation  to  the  new 
process.  The  worker  is  entitled  to  have  his  customary  earn- 
ings maintained.  That  is  to  say,  if  necessary,  he  may  demand 
to  be  paid  temporarily  on  an  hour  basis.  Whether  the  em- 
ployer is  obliged  to  grant  this  demand  or  has  the  option  of 
paying  the  transferred  worker  at  the  existing  piece  rate 
pending  an  adjustment  by  the  price  committee,  seems  to 


284     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

depend  on  the  circumstances  in  the  particular  case,  and  has 
not  been  finally  decided  as  a  principle. 

One  such  case^^  came  up  on  appeal  early  in  1916,  when  a 
collar  edge  baster  was  suspended  on  the  alleged  ground  of 
insubordination.  She  had  been  asked  to  do  work  in  another 
section  and  declined  to  do  it  unless  she  was  assured  of  hour- 
work  pay.  The  manager  held  that  the  rule  of  the  house  did 
not  require  him  to  assure  her  hour  work  but  that  she  should 
accept  the  transfer  either  on  hour  or  piece  work,  subject  to 
later  adjudication.  Upon  her  refusal  to  accept  the  transfer 
on  this  basis,  she  was  suspended,  and  the  union  then  com- 
plained that  the  suspension  was  unjust  and  asked  for  back 
pay.  In  the  absence  of  the  other  members  of  the  Board  of 
Arbitration,  the  chairman  refrained  from  passing  on  the 
general  issue  of  the  right  of  a  worker  to  refuse  to  accept  the 
order  of  the  foreman  if  it  seems  to  him  to  be  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  agreement.  On  the  concrete  issue  of  the 
claim  of  the  company  to  transfer  a  worker  from  a  slack  sec- 
tion to  a  congested  section  at  its  option  at  the  piece-work 
price  of  the  latter,  the  chairman  merely  expressed  doubt  as 
to  the  soundness  of  the  company's  position.  Later  decisions 
have  tended  to  establish  the  workers'  right  to  refuse  a  trans- 
fer on  terms  that  would  entail  a  reduction  of  his  customary 
earnings.  Only,  if  the  worker  voluntarily  accepts  the  trans- 
fer on  the  understanding  that  he  is  to  be  paid  at  the  piece- 
work rate  of  the  new  operation,  he  has  no  grievance  if  his 
earnings  should  fall  below  his  customary  standard  at  his 
former  operation.  Insofar  as  the  transfer  is  made  by  execu- 
tive action,  the  governing  principle  is  that  earnings  shall  be 
maintained.  In  the  case  of  temporary  transfer,  at  any  rate, 
of  piece  workers  to  operations  other  than  their  own,  their 
right  to  demand  hour  work  has  been  definitely  recognized. 

The  considerations  limiting  the  employer  in  his  exercise 
of  the  right  of  transfer  of  workers  for  administrative  pur- 
poses may  be  illustrated  in  a  special  situation**  where  such 
transfers  were  made  on  an  extensive  scale.  The  situation  was 
that  of  many  firms  which  during  the  war  undertook  large 
orders  for  manufacturing  army  uniforms.     This  required 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  285 

them  to  divert  a  considerable  part  of  their  working  force  and 
plant  equipment  to  the  new  task,  and  consequently  involved 
the  transfer  of  many  workers  not  only  from  civilian  to  army 
clothing  but  even  from  one  operation  to  another,  as  the  bal- 
ancing of  sections  might  dictate.  In  the  case  of  one  im- 
portant firm  having  a  large  order  for  army  overcoats,  the 
first  step  was  the  drawing  up  by  the  price  committee  of  a 
tentative  scale  of  piece-work  rates  for  all  operations.  The 
rates  were  so  fixed  as  to  enable  the  various  sections  employed 
on  the  army  coats  to  maintain  their  customary  earnings  on 
civiHan  coats.  It  was  agreed  that  any  revision  of  the  rate 
of  any  section  was  to  be  upon  the  basis  of  the  corresponding 
or  most  similar  operation  on  civilian  clothes.  For  example, 
the  pocket-making  section  was  to  maintain  the  same  earnings 
on  army  coats  as  on  regular  coats;  but  if  a  high  paid  or  a 
lower  paid  operator  from  some  other  section  or  factory  should 
be  transferred  to  pocket-making  on  army  work,  his  former 
scale  of  earnings  would  not  be  taken  into  account  in  making- 
revision.  This  did  not  mean,  of  course,  that  the  individual 
thus  transferred  could  be  compelled  to  suffer  loss  of  earnings 
in  the  process.  The  acceptance  of  transfer  was  to  be  optional 
with  the  worker.  Once  he  had  accepted,  however,  the  special 
agreement  required  him  to  accept  likewise  the  tentative  piece- 
work rate  of  the  operation  to  which  he  was  assigned.  And 
this  rate  would  be  effective  at  once,  with  no  basis  for  claim 
for  hour  work  while  learning.  If  it  became  necessary  to 
again  transfer  the  worker,  his  earnings  on  the  new  operation 
were  not  to  be  less  than  on  the  previous  one. 

The  principle  that  a  worker's  earnings  must  not  be  reduced 
in  consequence  of  a  transfer  ordered  by  the  management 
applies  not  merely  to  piece-work  earnings  but  to  week-work 
wages  as  well.  And  it  applies  likewise  to  such  transfers  as 
involve  a  change  from  week-work  to  piece-work  or  vice  versa. 
Under  certain  conditions  this  principle  of  conserving  stand- 
ards of  earnings  works  out,  in  practice,  to  raise  them.  Such 
was  the  effect  in  the  case®^  of  a  certain  under-presser,  V,  a 
week  worker  at  $15.80  per  week.  V  was  transferred  to  a 
piece-work  operation,  canvas  pressing,  at  which  he  earned 


/ 


286     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

I 
$18  to  $20  per  week,  and  over.    After  this  he  was  restored 

to  his  week- work  job  and  his  wages  reduced  to  his  old  scale, 
$15.80  per  week.  When  the  case  came  up  on  appeal  to  the 
Board  of  Arbitration,  the  chairman  held  that  this  was  an 
unjustifiable  reduction.  "  He  feels  that  the  week-work  ra^ 
fixed  for  V  was  based  on  the  then  accepted  estima^  of  his 
earning  power;  that  the  continuance  of  that  scale  was  inter- 
rupted by  his  change  to  another  position ;  that  the  new  posi- 
tion enabled  him  to  demonstrate  that  his  earning  ability  was 
greater  than  the  amoimt  previously  fixed ;  and,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  i^e  week-work  to  which  he  was  restored  was  sub- 
stantially similar  to  Mis  piece-work  operation,  there  seems  no 
valid  reason'  that  he  should  be  requireid  to  work  for  a  smaller 
wage  than  ^hat  he  has  demonstrated  his  ability  to  earn." 
The  chairman  accordingly  confirmed  the  judgment  of  the 
Trade  Board,  namely,  that  V  shotild  receive  the  rate  deter- 
mined by  the  piece-work  earnings  with  back  pay  for  such 
period  as  he  had  oeen  receiving  the  lower  rate.  ^ 

The  worker  may  have  other  interests  than  earnings  at  stake 
in  the  event  of  transfer.  These  are  such  as  relate  to  the  de- 
sirability of  the  work,  privileges  associated  with  it,  oppor- 
tunities of  advancement  afforded  by  it,  and  the  like.  He  has 
the  ri^t  to  have  these  interests  conserved  along  with  his 
wages ;  in  other  words,  transfers  as  administrative  in  distinc- 
tion from  disciplinary  measures,  while  they  mayv  involve  pro- 
motion, may  not  entail  demotion  lor  the  worker,  without  his 
consent.  A  (Jecision®^  vindicating  this  principle  is  found  in 
the  case  of  F,  a  worker  in  the  under-coUar^  section,  who  was 
transferred  to  the  niatching  table,  as  he  believed^  to  his  dis- 
advantage. He  had  been  reinstated  by  the  Trade  Board, 
and  the  company  appealed  the  decision.  The  chairman  of 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  found  that  the  question  turned  on 
whether  the  worker  had  been  transferred  without  adequate 
reason  to  his  own  injury.  On  examination,  F  testified  that 
he  had  worked  in  the  under-collar  department  for  a  year  and 
a  half,  and  he  felt  that  this  transfer  was  a  demotion.  After 
hearing  all  the  testimony,  the  chairman  held  that  no  adequate 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  287 

reason  had  been  offered  for  rever«ing  the  decision  of  the 
Trade  Boardj  and  it  was,  accordingly,  sustained. 
r  in  another  case,®^  the  worker's  complaint  was  that  having 
been  transferred  from  the  firm's  inside  shop  to  the  outside 
shop,  his  customary  privilege  of  receiving  pay  for  holidays 
was  withdrawn.  The  Trade  Board  recognized  the  right  of 
this  worker  to  carry  the  ccffiditions  and  privileges  of  the  in- 
side shop  with  him  when  transferred  to  the  outside  shop,  and 
ruled  tWat  he  was  entitled  to  pay  for  holidays.  -^ 

The  protection  in  connection  with  this  transfer  of  the\ 
worker's  wage  and  other  standards  which  is  accomplished 
under  the  clause  of  the  agreement  quoted  on  p.  282 
above,  was  hot  afforded  by  the  agreements  prior  to  1916. 
Accordingly,  in  a  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration®® 
given  in  1915,  the  issue  arose  as  a  question  of  interpre- 
tation of  the  minimum  wage  clause  of  thef  agreement  then  in 
force.  The  company  in  that  case  held  that  when  a  machine 
operator  was  transferred  to  a  section  with  Which  he  was  un- 
familiar, he  should  take  the  lower  minimum  wage  of  a  learner 
in  that  section — i.  e.,  $5  a  week.  The  union,  on  the  other 
hand,  held  that  any  machine  operator  who  had  served  over 
three  months  would  receive  not  less  than  $8  a  week  wherever 
he  might  be  placed.  The  chairman  was  of  the  opinion  that 
the  interpretation  of  the  union  was  QQyrect  and  that  after 
service  of  three  months  the  machine  operator  was  entitled  to 
the  minimum  wage  of  $8  wherever  placed,  with  the  exception 
of  certain  sections  especially  noted  in  the  clause  of  the  agree- 
ment in  question. 

\N.  THE   INTRODUCTION  OF  LABOR-SAVING  DEVICES 

'       Thus  far  we  have  dealt  with  the  general  principles  evolved R 
by  the  union  for  hmiting  the  power  of  management  in  the 
matter  of  initiating  changes  in  work  or  pay  by  administrative 

:    decree.    Closely  related  to  this  general  problem  is  the  special 

^  problem  of  regulating  the  introduction  of  technical  improve- 
ments in  the  methods  of  work,  whose  effect  on  the  workers, 

J ,  if  left  to  the  uncontrolled  action  of  management,  might  in-  \ 


288     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

volve  serious  injury  to  their  standards.  The  most  immedi- 
ate and  obvious  tendency  of  such  technical  improvements  is 
to  displace  workers  now  employed,  who  are  rendered  super- 
fluous by  the  greater  efficiency  of  the  "  labor-saving  "  de- 
vice. Indeed,  this  is  in  most  cases  not  merely  an  incidental 
result,  but  a  direct  object  of  the  innovation.  The  fear  of 
losing  his  job — and  possibly  his  livelihood — through  being 
discarded  along  with  his  accustomed  skill  or  method  of  work 
by  reason  of  a  new  invention,  is  so  deeply  rooted  in  the 
worker's  mind  that  he  instinctively  resists  every  change  pro- 
posed by  the  employer  to  simplify  his  task.  This  also  ex- 
plains the  persistent  opposition  of  workers,  both  organized 
and  unorganized,  to  the  sudden  substitution  of  machine  proc- 
esses for  hand  labor  in  their  trades.  It  is  only  as  they  gain 
the  power  through  organization  to  control  the  conditions  un- 
der which  such  improvements  are  to  be  introduced  and  used 
that  their  attitude  toward  the  latter  changes  to  one  of  tolera- 
tion and  then  of  co-operation  in  the  technical  progress  of  the 
industry. 

The  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers,  conscious  of  its 
power  to  protect  its  members  in  their  jobs  and  their  rights 
against  infringement  by  mechanical  improvements,  today 
takes  the  position  that  no  unnecessary  restrictions  shall  be 
placed  upon  such  improvements.  In  a  supplement  to  the 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Agreement  of  1919,  the  point  is 
covered  in  the  following  language:  "  It  is  not  the  purpose 
or  intention  of  the  Agreement  to  hinder  the  introduction  of 
improved  methods  or  force  the  retention  of  inefficient 
methods.  Under  the  supervision  of  the  Trade  Board,  the 
company  shall  not  be  limited  in  making  experiments  and 
may  select  and  hire  persons  for  experimental  work  accord- 
ing to  its  judgment." 

There  remains  the  question  as  to  what  restrictions  are 
necessary  and  how  they  are  to  be  applied  to  the  management 
when  a  technical  innovation  is  contemplated.  Speaking 
broadly,  the  general  principle  that  the  interests  of  the 
workers  affected  by  the  change  must  be  safeguarded  is  ap- 
plicable here  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  other  changes  in  work  or- 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  289 

dered  by  the  management  and  the  procedure  is  similar.  The 
earliest  adjudication  of  this  question  as  one  of  principle  of 
which  we  have  record,  is  found  in  the  opinion  by  Mr.  Wil- 
liams,®^ dated  April  2,  1915,  upholding  a  decision  by  Mr. 
Mullenbach  in  the  same  case. 

fThe  subject  in  dispute  was  the  introduction  of  a  labor- 
saving  device — perforated  patterns — ^in  the  trimming  room. 
The  union  took  the  position  that  it  was  not  opposed  to  the 
introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery,  but  did  not  favor 
the  introduction  of  processes  designed  to  supplant  skilled  by 
unskilled  labor  for  the  purpose  of  saving  wages  by  lowering 
the  established  scale.  While  not  opposing  the  introduction 
of  machinery  designed  to  promote  a  more  efficient  produc- 
tion, the  union  realized  that  it  would  work  to  the  injury  of 
its  members  and  felt  that  it  should  be  made  as  little  oppres- 
sive as  possible,  and  to  this  end  it  claimed  that  its  members 
should  be  used  to  operate  any  machinery  or  process  thus 
introduced.  In  the  case  in  question  it  appeared  that  the 
company  sought  to  use  a  young  man  or  office  boy  in  the 
operation  of  the  perforated  pattern  device,  and  the  Trade 
Board  had  ruled  that  regular  employes  of  the  trimming  sec- 
tion should  be  given  that  employment.  From  this  ruling 
the  company  had  filed  an  appeal. 

The  company  contended  that  the  Trade  Board  had  no 
power  under  the  agreement  to  limit  its  range  of  selection 
of  employes  for  such  operations  as  this;  that  the  operation 
in  question  was  properly  a  boy's  job  and  it  should  not  be 
required  to  pay  trimmer's  wages  for  the  operation;  that  the 
trimmers  were  unfriendly  to  the  device,  and  that  its  success 
ought  not  to  be  entrusted  to  unfriendly  hands,  and  that  no 
trimmer  would  want  to  stay  permanently  at  such  work,  be- 
cause it  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  demotion  and  would 
offer  no  prospect  of  an  advance  of  pay  or  status  to  the  man 
who  worked  on  it. 

In  his  decision  of  the  main  issue.  Chairman  Williams  made 
the  following  ruling: 

"  With  respect  to  the  introduction  of  labor  saving  devices 
and  processes,  the  chairman  concurs  in  the  common  agreement 


290     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

that  the  company  has  the  clear  and  undisputed  right  to  intro- 
duce them.  If  claim  is  made  that  their  introduction  affects 
the  rights  of  workers  under  the  agreement,  such  claims  may  be 
considered  and  adjudicated  in  the  same  manner  as  any  other 
claim,  whether  it  relates  to  wages,  persons,  or  conditions  of 
work. 

"  In  view  of  the  probable  hardship  to  persons  displaced  by 
such  labor-saving  device  or  process,  the  chairman  is  inclined 
to  the  position  that  the  persons  employed  at  the  work  should 
as  far  as  possible  and  practicable  be  employed  to  operate  the 
new  device  or  process ;  and  that  such  employment  would  be 
more  likely  to  counteract  their  natural  unfriendliness  than 
would  be  the  act  of  displacing  them  altogether. 

"  Applying  these  considerations  to  the  situation  in  the  trim- 
ming room,  the  chairman  holds  that  the  company  should  employ 
some  of  the  regular  employes  of  the  trimming  room  to  operate 
the  perforating  device  in  dispute,  and,  therefore,  concurs  in  the 
action  of  the  Trade  Board." 

The  substitution  of  a  mechanical  device  for  the  older 
manual  process  usually  involves  a  simplification  of  the  opera- 
tion. It  thereby  enables  the  employer — but  for  the  resist- 
ance of  the  union — to  man  the  new  device  with  unskilled  per- 
sons at  a  lower  wage.  These  would  in  a  short  time  be  able  to 
operate  it  as  efficiently  as  the  skilled  hand  workers  whom 
they  had  displaced.  The  effect  would  be  to  undermine  not 
only  existing  wage  standards,  but  even  the  power  of  the 
union  in  the  industry.  The  resistance  of  the  union,  however, 
is  not  merely  obstructive ;  it  is,  in  effect,  constructive.  For  it 
makes  possible  the  prompt  adoption  of  an  improvement  in 
productive  technique  while  at  the  same  time  protecting  the 
workers  in  their  jobs  and  their  other  rights  under  the  agree- 
ment. 

The  principle  established  by  the  decision  of  Mr.  Wilhams 
regarding  the  operation  of  the  perforating  device  served  as 
a  precedent  the  following  year,  when  a  similar  issue  was  pre- 
sented for  adjustment.  In  this  case^""  the  union  complained 
that  by  the  introduction  of  a  new  process  in  the  trimming 
room,  the  work  formerly  done  by  regular  trimmers  had  been 
given  to  boys  earning  from  $7  to  $8  a  week.  The  union  took 
its  stand  on  the  ground  of  the  earlier  decision,  which  held 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  291 

that  in  the  event  of  the  introduction  of  a  new  mechanism 
or  process  the  work  should  be  done  as  far  as  possible  by  the 
workers  in  the  section  affected  without  loss  of  earning  power. 
The  result  was  an  adjustment  by  mutual  agreement,  by 
which  the  trinmiers  were  assured  the  work  which  had  for- 
merly been  theirs. 

The  principle  that  workers  have  a  virtual  property  right 
in  their  jobs,  which  forbids  their  displacement  by  other 
workers  when  the  method  of  work  is  changed  through  the 
introduction  of  a  machine  or  other  labor-saving  process,  has 
only  become  established  in  consequence  of  repeated  contests 
successfully  waged  before  the  impartial  machinery.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  rule  that  such  workers'  earnings  are  to  be 
maintained  when  they  pass  from  the  old  to  the  new  method 
of  working.  The  following  case^^^  is  of  special  historic  inter- 
est because  it  marks  a  decisive  vindication  of  both  of  these 
principles  and  has  provided,  in  its  turn,  a  precedent  for 
later  decisions. 

Professor  Howard,  as  deputy  for  the  company,  presented 
the  follo^ving: 

"  Petition  to  Board  of  Arbitration  for  Ruling  Concerning 
Vest  Pressing  Machines. 

I . "  The  company  desires   to   install  automatic  vest  pressing 

machines.  These  machines  effect  a  large  saving  of  labor  and 
expense,  principally  by  making  unnecessary  the  employment  of 
skilled  pressers  to  operate  them. 

"  I  can  find  nothing  in  our  agreement  which  forbids  the  com- 
pany to  operate  these  machines  with  men  adapted  both  by  phy- 
sical strength  and  standard  of  wages  to  the  machines.  The 
scale  of  this  grade  of  labor  is  about  $15.00.  As  soon  as  pos- 
sible, the  price  committee  should  make  a  piece-work  price  based 
on  work  of  a  similar  grade  of  skill  and  effort. 

"  The  pressers  by  hand  are  receiving  an  abnormal  piece-price 
which  is  one  of  the  errors  made  irrevocable  by  the  first  rulings 
of  the  Board  which  forced  the  company  to  retain  all  prices  then 
existing  plus  10  per  cent.  There  would  be  no  possibility  of 
retaining  the  present  pressers  on  this  work,  because  their  spe- 
cialized skill  is  not  needed  and  because  they  are  not  adapted  to 
the  work.  The  agreement  provides  that  these  pressers  shall  be 
given  '  employment  as  much  as  possible  like  the  new  work  from 


292     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

which  they  were  displaced.'     This  would  probably  be  coat  off- 
pressing. 

"  The  deputy  for  the  company  wishes  to  have  a  ruling  from 
the  Board  as  to  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation  of  the 
agreement  and  to  make  sure  that  nothing  which  might  be  con- 
strued to  be  adverse  to  this  interpretation  may  not  have  been 
overlooked.  Also,  if  it  please  the  Board,  the  company  would 
welcome  a  suggestion  as  to  the  best  practical  way  to  make  the 
change." 

The  union,  in  reply,  submitted  the  following  brief: 

"  The  company  has  applied  to  the  Arbitration  Board  for  the 
right  of  introducing  machines  to  press  vests,  heretofore  pressed 
by  hand,  also  for  the  right  to  have  these  machines  operated  by 
cheaper  help. 

"  In  the  first  question,  the  Union  does  not  advance  any  objec- 
tion, though  do  regret  that  a  number  of  its  members  must  be 
.  displaced. 

"  To  the  second  question  the  Union  beg  to  submit  to  the 
Arbitration  Board  the  following: 

"  By  the  Trade  Board  agreement  the  right  to  make  prices 
was  given  to  the  Trade  Board  with  the  following  restrictions: 
'  Change  of  prices  must  correspond  to  the  change  of  work  and! 
new  prices  must  be  based  upon  old  prices  where  possible.'  i 

"  Since  this  has  been  in  effect,  many  sections  were  changed 
from  hand  work  to  machine,  and  in  no  case  has  the  company 
claimed  that  work  done  by  machine  should  be  done  by  less  expen- 
sive help.  Instead,  their  representative  on  the  Price  Commit- 
tee, together  with  the  representative  of  the  Union,  have  always 
agreed  that  work  transferred  from  hand  to  machine  should 
enable  the  machine  operator  to  earn  at  least  as  much  as  the 
hand  worker  used  to  earn.  Furthermore,  it  was  always  agreed 
between  these  representatives  that  the  people  displaced  by  intro- 
duction of  machinery  ought  to  get  the  first  opportunity  to  oper- 
ate these  machines,  and  this  has  been  the  practice  in  many 
cases.     *     *     ♦ 

"  The  introduction  of  the  machines  for  pressing  vests  does 
not  abolish  any  vest  pressing,  but  merely  changes  the  pressing 
from  hand  to  machine.  Consequently,  the  power  of  the  Board 
is  restricted  by  the  clause  of  the  agreement  which  I  repeat: 
*  Change  of  prices  must  correspond  to  the  change  of  work  and 
new  prices  must  be  based  upon  old  prices  where  possible.' 

"  Inasmuch  as  in  this  case  it  is  not  only  possible,  but  it  is 
very  evident,  that  old  prices,  being  yet  in  operation,  can  be  used 


ir- 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS   293 

to  fix  a  new  price  for  the  pressing  of  vests  by  machine, — the 
Board's  attention  is  called  to  the  importance  of  this  case,  which 
imperils  the  life  of  the  Union  and  the  Agreement  itself.'*  ] 

The  ruling  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  response  to  the 
company's,  petition  was  a  majority  decision,  signed  by  Chair- 
man Williams  and  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  for  the  miion. 
Mr.  Cresap,  for  the  company,  wrote  a  dissenting  opinion. 
The  Board  decided  that: 

"  It  does  not  agree  with  the  interpretation  of  the  agreement 
proposed  by  the  deputy  of  the  company,  as  a  whole. 

"  It  agrees  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  agreement  which  pre- 
vents the  introduction  of  machinery  for  the  purpose  of  saving 
labor  and  increasing  efficiency  even  though  its  introduction  may 
reduce  and  displace  the  hand  workers  usually  employed  in  the 
affected  section.  But  in  fixing  the  scale  of  wages  for  the  opera- 
tion of  such  machinery,  the  Board  believes  the  company  is 
restrained  by  the  agreement,  and  by  the  precedents  and  prac- 
tices hitherto  obtaining,  from  reducing  the  earnings  of  the  work- 
ers employed  in  the  section. 

**  The  company  contends  that  the  change  of  work  caused  by 
the  introduction  of  this  machinery  is  so  great  as  to  constitute 
a  new  section,  and  that  the  substitution  proposed  would  vir- 
tually amount  to  an  abolition  of  the  old  section.  The  Board 
is  unable  to  coincide  with  this  view,  but  holds  instead  that,  in 
substance,  the  continuity  of  the  section  would  be  unimpaired, 
the  same  work  would  be  performed,  the  same  points  in  quality 
of  pressing  must  be  safeguarded,  and  that  the  principal  differ-i 
ence  would  be  in  the  speed  with  which  the  operation  is  performed.! 
Thus  believing,  the.  Board  holds  that  the  proposed  change  i»\ 
a  change  mainly  in  the  instruments  of  pressing,  and  does  not 
amount  to  the  creation  of  a  new  trade,  or  such  an  alteration  in 
•  the  conditions  of  vest  pressing  as  to  justify  the  claim  of  an 
abolition  of  section. 

"  The  decision  of  the  Board  is  that  in  the  event  the  company 
introduces  the  vest  pressing  machinery,  as  suggested,  the  prices 
for  operating  the  same  shall  be  fixed  by  the  price  committee, 
upon  the  same  principles  and  basis  as  are  regularly  used  by  them 
in  making  all  changes  in  price  under  the  agreement,  and  which 
are  specified  in  the  section  hereinbefore  quoted." 

Almost  five  years  after  this  decision  had  been  rendered, 
the  issue  then  disposed  of  arose  again  in  a  somewhat  modi- 
fied form  and  with  the  emphasis  on  the  claim  of  the  particu- 
lar section  to  the  work  under  the  changed  conditions  of  op- 


294      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

eration.  In  this  case,^*^^  the  question  was  whether  the  shop 
trimmers  or  a  joker  sewer  should  man  a  stamping  machine 
which  would  place  in  the  hands  of  the  operator  parts  of  the 
work  heretofore  done  by  both  of  these  on  shady  lots.  There 
was  also  involved  the  question  as  to  whether  the  price  should 
be  based  upon  the  earnings  of  the  trimmers  or  upon  those 
of  the  joker  sewer.  The  Trade  Board,  after  hearing  the  case, 
had  found  that  a  machine  was  being  substituted  for  hand- 
work in  the  trimming  section  and  "  in  line  with  the  ruling 
of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  the  case  of  the  vest  pressing 
machines,"  had  ruled  that  work  on  the  new  machine  should 
"  be  assigned  to  the  trimming  section." 

In  submitting  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in 
this  case,  Chairman  Millis  ruled  as  follows: 

"The  case  here  presented  is  similar  to  the  vest  pressing 
machine  case.  The  principle  there  laid  down  by  *  majority 
decision  '  has  been  consistently  followed  for  several  years  and 
has  proved  its  worth.  It  should  be  applied  properly  in  the 
present  case.  The  only  material  difference  between  it  and  the 
vest  pressing  machine  case  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  the  one  the 
interests  of  two  sections  are  involved  while  in  the  other  the  ques- 
tion was  as  to  whether  the  company  might  employ  new  and 
cheaper  help  on  the  machine  or  must  employ  the  workers  there 
engaged  in  hand  pressing,  and  fix  prices  which  would  conserve 
their  earnings.  In  the  case  before  the  Board  the  company 
wishes  to  man  the  machine  by  a  joker  sewer  at  a  price  based 
upon  the  earnings  from  that  occupation,  (some  $40  a  week). 
The  union,  on  the  other  hand,  wants  it  manned  by  a  trinyner 
at  a  price  based  upon  trimmer's  earnings,  (approaching  $50 
per  week). 

"  The  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  matter  should  be  dis- 
posed of  with  some  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  machine  opera- 
tion, but  with  chief  reference  to  the  relative  importance  of  the 
claims  of  the  two  sections,  part  of  whose  work  is  to  be  done  or 
ehminated  by  the  machine. 

"  In  certain  respects  a  joker  sewer  would  be  best  fitted  im- 
mediately to  operate  the  machine,  but  its  operation  would 
involve  the  heavier  responsibilities  borne  by  the  trimmers  and 
not  by  the  joker  sewer. 

"  It  appears  that  nearly  all  of  the  work  to  be  done  or  elimi- 
nated by  the  machine  has  until  recently  been  done  by  trimmers 
*  *  *  It  would  appear  from  the  estimates  given  by  the  company 
and  the  payroll  that  about  three- fourths  of  the  whole  here  in- 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  295 

volved  has  been  done  by  trimmers,  about  one-fourth  by  joker 


sewer 


"  Considering  the  responsibility  connected  with  the  opera- 
tion, the  prior  claim  of  the  trimmers,  and  the  fact  that  even 
recently  most  of  the  work  involved  has  been  done  by  the  trim- 
mers, it  is  held  that  the  trimmer  should  be  placed  upon  the 
machine  and  a  price  made  which,  with  efficient  operation,  will 
yield  trimmer's  earnings. 

"  This  decision  does  not  give  the  company  the  greatest  imme- 
diate gain  from  the  new  machine.  The  chairman  is  of  the  opin- 
ion, however,  that  the  company's  interests  are  best  served  in  the 
long  run  by  avoiding  the  development  of  opposition  to 
machinery  and  new  methods." 

Whenever  a  technical  improvement  is  proposed  or  intro- 
duced by  the  employer,  the  immediate  effect  on  the  worker 
is  to  put  him  in  a  defensive  attitude  of  mind.  The  worker's 
experience  has  taught  him  that  he  has  interests  at  stake  in 
every  change  affecting  his  work,  and  that  those  interests, 
being  in  general  opposed  to  the  immediate  interests  of  the 
employer,  can  only  be  properly  defended  by  himself  or  his 
organization.  Where  the  anticipated  harmful  consequences 
of  the  innovation  relate  not  to  present  displacement  or  wage 
reduction  but  to  an  eventual  depreciation  of  craft  skill  or 
deterioration  of  bargaining  power  of  the  worker,  such  con- 
sequences are  both  harder  to  prove  and  to  insure  against. 
The  resulting  tendency  on  the  worker's  part  is  to  resist  out- 
right the  innovation,  not  trusting  to  promises  as  a  guarantee 
against  possible  injury  to  his  interests  in  future.  Under 
these  conditions  resort  to  direct  action  is  not  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, as  happened  in  the  case  of  the  cutters  in  a  certain 
house.^''^  These  being  ordered  in  an  emergency  to  lay  up 
different  fabrics  were  so  imbued  with  the  fear  of  the  ulti- 
mate hurtful  effect  of  the  change  on  unemployment  of  cut- 
ters, that  they  engaged,  first,  in  a  prolonged  stoppage  and, 
later,  in  deliberate  restriction  of  output.  As  a  rule,  however, 
the  discipline  of  the  union  together  with  the  union's  concern 
with  the  permanent  interests  of  its  members  suffices  to  safe- 
guard these  interests  through  the  regular  legal  procedure. 

Technical  changes  in  work  are  usually  introduced  by  the 
management  in  the  interest  of  greater  efficiency  in  produc- 


296     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

tion.  They  may  involve,  on  the  other  hand,  disadvantage 
or  loss  to  workers  that  offsets  their  advantage  to  the  em- 
ployer. Both  interests  being  legitimate,  it  devolves  upon 
the  impartial  chairman  to  attempt  to  reconcile  them  or,  fail- 
ing that,  to  determine  which  of  the  two  is  the  more  vital  in 
the  given  situation.  This  issue  is  illustrated  in  the  following- 
case.  ^'^^  The  repair  man  in  the  trimming  room  had  been  given 
the  additional  work  of  sharpening  the  knives  of  the  machine 
operators.  The  union  objected  on  the  ground  that  it  took 
work  away  from  union  men  and  gave  it  to  a  non-union  man. 
The  Trade  Board  sustained  the  contention  of  the  union. 

The  company  appealed  from  the  decision  on  the  ground 
that  the  matter  was  not  so  much  a  question  of  preference 
to  the  union  as  it  was  a  question  of  the  company's  right  to 
install  more  efficient  methods  in  the  trimming  room.  The 
imion  rejoined  that  it  did  not  object  to  improved  methods 
but  wanted  them  brought  about  without  injury  to  the 
workers.  In  this  case  it  held  that  the  trimmers  would  be 
seriously  harmed  by  not  being  permitted  to  sharpen  their 
own  knives,  that  knife  sharpening  was  an  essential  part  of 
the  trimmer's  trade,  that  if  he  did  not  know  and  practice  it 
he  would  not  be  able  to  work  in  other  houses  than  Hart, 
Schaffner  and  Marx,  and  so  would  be  heavily  handicapped 
in  earning  his  livelihood. 

In  deciding  this  issue,  Mr.  Williams  recorded  his  opinion 
as  follows: 

"  The  chairman  feels  strongly  that  the  company  should  be 
supported  in  its  efforts  to  improve  the  methods  and  has  no 
sympathy  with  the  anti-improvement  attitude  which  has  charac- 
terized some  of  the  trade  unions  in  the  past,  yet  he  believes  that 
changes  when  made  should  not  be  at  the  expense  of  the  worker 
where  it  is  possible  to  avoid  it.  In  the  present  case,  he  does  not 
feel  that  the  amount  of  work  or  saving  involved  is  important 
enough  to  make  it  a  test  case  of  the  efficiency  principle,  or 
that  the  nice  balancing  of  the  factors  of  efficiency  of  work  and 
injury  to  worker  really  requires  to  be  subjected  to  the  test  of 
adjudication  in  this  doubtful  instance    *     *     * 

"  The  chairman  is  inclined  to  give  the  workers  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt  in  a  case  where  serious  crippling  of  earning  power 
is  claimed,  and  where  the  effect  on  the  company  is  not  important, 
and  he  therefore  is  willing  to  confirm  that  part  of  the  Trade 


PROTECTING  WORKING  CONDITIONS  29T 

Board  decision  which  reads  as  follows :     *  The  work,  accord- 
ingly, is  ordered  to  be  restored  to  its  former  condition.' 

"  But  this  decision  should  not  be  understood  to  imply  that 
the  chairman  is  not  in  thorough  sympathy  with  the  legitimate 
attempts  of  the  company  to  improve  its  processes    *    *    *  " 

As  in  the  case  of  substituting  a  machine  for  a  hand  process, 
so  in  changing  one  machine  for  another,  the  employer  is 
bound  to  conserve  the  interests  of  the  workers  affected.  If, 
for  example,  the  new  machine  is  more  difficult  to  operate 
than  the  old,  application  must  be  madei  to  the  price  committee 
for  an  adjustment  of  the  piece  rate,  so  that  the  operator's 
earnings  shall  be  maintained.  The  fact  that  the  new  machine 
is  more  efficient  than  the  old  one  and  enables  the  operator 
with  the  same  effort  to  turn  out  a  greater  number  of  gar- 
ments, does  not  in  itself  entitle  him  to  increased  compen- 
sation. The  gain  in  efficiency  under  present  conditions 
accrues  primarily  to  the  employer,  except  insofar  as  the 
bargaining  strength  of  the  union  may  secure  a  share  of  the 
gain  for  the  worker  through  fixing  an  advantageous  piece 
rate  for  his  changed  operation.  The  question  of  risk,  on  the 
other  hand,  like  that  of  effort,  enters  directly  into  the  cal- 
culation of  piece  rates  and  earnings.  The  greater  care  de- 
manded and  strain  on  the  worker's  attention  involved  in 
operating  a  dangerous  machine  must  in  fairness  be  offset 
by  an  increase  in  rate,  if  only  on  the  theory  that  his  effort 
is  increased  or  the  time  per  unit  of  output  necessarily 
lengthened.  This  point  gets  negative  illustration  in  the  case 
of  a  trimmer^'' '^  who  refused  to  use  a  certain  cutting  machine 
unless  he  were  paid  a  higher  wage,  and  who  had  caused 
another  operator  to  refuse  to  work  it.  The  chairman  of  the 
Trade  Board,  after  hearing  the  facts,  held  that  the  machine 
in  question  involved  no  more  risks  than  other  cutting  ma- 
chines, and  that  the  firm  was  therefore  within  its  rights  in 
assigning  the  trimmer  to  operate  the  machine  without  in- 
crease in  pay. 

Even  as  between  the  worker's  accustomed  machine  and 
another  of  exactly  the  same  kind,  the  substitution  of  one 
for  the  other  may  entail  for  him  a  real  point  of  grievance. 
The  change  may  merely  upset  temporarily  and  in  slight  de- 


298     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

gree  the  worker's  habits  of  adjustment  to  his  machine;  but 
to  this  extent  it  affects  his  earnings  unfavorably,  and  must 
somehow  be  compensated.  The  problem  is  clearly  pre- 
sented in  a  Trade  Board  case^®^  growing  out  of  the  combin- 
ing of  two  shops  hy  the  firm  during  a  slack  period,  and  the 
proposed  part-time  employment  of  both  groups  of  workers 
on  one  set  of  machines.  The  workers  transferred  from  the 
abandoned  shop  objected  on  the  ground  that  their  accus- 
tomed machines  should  be  transferred  with  them  to  the  other 
shop.  In  adjusting  the  dispute,  Chairman  Mullenbach  gave 
weight  to  the  following  considerations: 

"  The  Trade  Board  is  impressed  with  an  observation  that  has 
been  frequently  noted  in  the  shops.  One  may  say  it  is  customary 
for  a  machine  operator  to  wait  while  his  machine  is  being  re- 
paired by  the  machinist,  though  usually  extra  machines  are 
available.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the  operator 
is  a  piece  worker  and  anxious  to  employ  his  time,  this  refusal 
or  objection  to  using  the  special  machine  must  count  in  favor 
of  the  people's  contention.  Machines  have  habits  the  same  as 
the  workers  have  who  operate  them,  and  these  habits  have  to  be 
learned. 

"  To  sum  up,  the  union  bases  its  contention  for  an  adequate 
supply  of  machines,  one  for  each  individual  worker,  on  the 
usage  that  has  hitherto  prevailed  under  the  agreement ;  and  on 
the  disadvantage  of  using  a  strange  machine.  The  union  does 
not  object  to  consolidation  of  the  shops  but  argues  that  their, 
people  should  not  suffer  and  each  should  have  the  guarantee 
that  he  is  not  surplus  labor  but  has  his  recognized  place  in  the 
shop.  The  company  objects  to  installing  the  equipment  chiefly 
on  account  of  the  expense,  and  argues  that  the  reduction  of 
expense  in  every  possible  way  is  necessary  in  order  to  meet  the 
need  of  low  cost  of  production. 

"  Previous  rulings  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  merging 
shops,  introducing  improved  processes,  etc.,  have  indicated  that 
the  Board  has  had  in  mind  that  the  company  was  to  be  aided 
in  its  effort  for  more  efficient  methods,  but  that  such  changes 
should  not  be  tnade  at  the  expense  of  the  workers  or  at  least  the 
injury  ought  to  be  minimized  as  much  as  possible." 

The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board,  accordingly,  ordered 
an  estimate  to  be  submitted  of  the  expense  involved  in  hav- 
ing the  machines  removed  from  the  old  shop  to  the  new,  as 
an  intermediate  step  to  a  final  decision. 


'Oh 

0 

<n 

0 

«5 

C/3 

^ 

O 

0 

r-           #s 

%^        >-* 

5 

■3  s 

r\  '^ 

^  .H 

5C 

j=5 

0 

0    ^ 

CT! 

J  'Oh 

^4 

OS 

'—  *~5 

^H                 .N 

r--* 

'^  >. 

0 

^  -^ 

0 

Si  s 

js 

w 

02 

■73 

•  •     r« 

ci 

C 

f^ 

H 

03 

3  i 

0 

cn 

'^ 

0 

-^ 

•A     '1 

t-     0 

C 

c 

■^ 

?i   c 

.a 

P^ 

^ 

5C  P 

"3 

C 

S  0 

0 

0 

-t-' 

V  13 

0 

0 

art,  S 
nting 

be 

ffi   S 

0 

K* 

^  ^ 

^ 

0 

•_^ 

0 

0 

0 

0    ^ 

H 

^^ 

.5 

1 

X 

,J^ 

0 

.Si 

0 

i;  '-P 

^^         • 

-73    3 

-^ 

s   c 

>^ 

:3    a. 

0 

^^  ^ 

^ 

•-      0) 

>-H 

=^   5 

c 

r^  1— 1 

r-^ 

1— i      r; 

P 

CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES 

The  problem  of  wages  and  the  method  of  payment  is  one 
that  constantly  touches  every  wage-earner,  whether  employed 
by  the  piece  or  by  the  week.  The  story  of  the  rise  of  the 
general  wage  level  and  of  the  great  wage  arbitrations  in  the 
Chicago  clothing  industry  since  the  entry  of  the  union  in  the 
market  has  already  been  told.  In  the  present  chapter  it  is 
proposed  to  direct  attention  to  the  broad  principles  of  pro- 
cedure and  of  justice  governing  the  establishment  of  wage 
rates  and  their  adjustment.  Insofar  as  these  principles  have 
been  evolved  out  of  the  operation  of  the  agreement  and  the 
impartial  machinery,  they  form  part  of  the  established  law 
of  the  industry.  Instead  of  wages  being  left  to  the  arbi- 
trary determination  of  the  employer,  at  least  in  the  interval 
between  the  making  of  the  collective  wage  contract  and  its 
expiration,  these  laws  and  principles  control  the  actions  of 
the  employer  in  every  detail  of  his  wage  relations  to  the 
worker.  They  impose  certain  obligations  upon  the  employer 
which  spell  rights  for  the  worker  and  the  union.  From  the 
standpoint  of  growth  in  union  control,  the  development  of 
law  and  justice  in  this  field  of  industrial  relations  is  even 
more  important  than  any  specific  gains  in  the  wage  rate 
itself. 

THE  MAKING  OF  PIECE-WORK  RATES 

We  are  not  here  called  upon  to  raise  the  ultimate  question 
as  to  the  justice  of  the  wage  system  itself,  or  even  as  to  what 
constitutes  a  "  fair  wage  '*  in  the  abstract.  It  is  sufficient  for 
our  present  purpose  if  we  succeed  in  finding  through  a  study 
of  the  decisions  the  evolution  of  certain  general  principles, 
whose  application  secures  to  the  workers  such  a  measure  of 
practical  justice  as  the  existing  state  of  industrial  organiza- 


300     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

tion  permits.  The  outstanding  feature  of  the  wage  system 
as  found  in  the  Chicago  tailor  shops  before  the  1910  strike, 
was  not  so  much  the  generally  low  level  of  the  workers' 
earnings  as  it  was  the  exploitation  of  those  workers  through 
the  abuse  of  the  piece-work  system  of  payment. 

Piece  work  has  for  many  years  been  the  prevailing  basis 
of  payment  in  the  tailoring  operations.  While  the  power  of 
fixing  and  altering  piece-work  rates  remained  unregulated 
in  the  hands  of  foremen,  the  workers  were  exposed  to  all 
the  evils  of  sub-contracting,  speeding,  rate-cutting,  unfair 
competition,  unfair  discrimination,  and  the  like.  After  the 
strike,  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  instituted  a 
system  of  written  specifications  and  prices  for  all  operations. 
Although  this  standardization  resulted  in  an  immediate  low- 
ering of  earnings  for  many  workers  because  of  increased 
requirements  as  to  quality,  it  represented  a  long  step  in  the 
direction  of  a  constitutional  procedure  in  the  making  and 
adjustment  of  piece-work  rates. 

The  basis  of  piece-work  rates  in  the  market  today  are 
schedules  of  prices  and  specifications  for  all  the  piece-work 
operations  in  each  house.  The  schedules  were  arrived  at  in 
the  first  place  through  joint  negotiation  with  the  respective 
houses  and  made  part  of  the  agreement  for  each  house.  Since 
the  work  of  a  section  in  the  industry  differs  more  or  less 
widely  between  shops  and  from  one  season  to  another,  the 
specifications  and  the  prices  necessarily  vary  considerably 
and  often.  To  meet  this  necessity  and  to  insure  fair  prices  to 
piece  workers  at  all  times,  a  joint  machinery  has  grown  up 
under  the  agreement  in  the  form  of  a  piece-rate  committee. 
The  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement  provides: 
"  Whenever  a  change  of  piece  rate  is  contemplated  the  mat- 
ter shall  be  referred  to  a  specially  appointed  rate  commit- 
tee who  shall  fix  the  rate  according  to  the  change  of  work. 
If  the  conmiittee  disagree  the  Trade  Board  shall  fix  the 
rate."  According  to  the  Trade  Board  chairman,  "  as  a 
matter  of  practice,  the  work  of  rate  making  is  carried  on 
almost  exclusively  by  the  two  members  representing  the  com- 
pany and  the  people.  While  some  cases  are  brought  before  the 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  801 

full  committee,  these  cases  are  exceptional  when  compared 
to  the  number  settled  by  the  two  members." 

In  the  case  of  each  of  the  larger  houses  in  the  market  a 
special  union  deputy  is  assigned  as  price  expert,  and  he  acts 
as  the  people's  representative  on  the  rate  committee  for  that 
house.  In  case  of  inability  to  agree,  this  deputy  reports  to 
his  chief  price  deputy  who,  in  turn,  is  the  union's  representa- 
tive on  the  market  rate  committee.  "  Whenever  a  question 
of  piece-work  rate  arises,  it  is  taken  up  in  the  first  instance 
by  the  two  members  of  the  committee  and  an  attempt  is 
made  to  reach  an  agreement.  If  an  agreement  is  reached, 
a  specification  of  the  work  to  be  performed  and  the  rate  to 
be  paid  is  prepared  and  signed  by  both  representatives  with- 
out any  further  action.  If,  however,  the  two  parties  are 
unable  to  reach  an  agreement,  the  case  is  taken  up  with  the 
full  committee  and  an  agreement  reached,  or  a  decision  made 
fixing  the  rate  and  specification.  If  this  decision  is  unsat- 
isfactory to  either  party,  the  decision  may  be  appealed  to 
the  Board  of  Arbitration." 

Changes  in  specifications  are  proposed,  whenever  neces- 
sary, by  the  company,  being  a  primary  concern  of  manage- 
ment. But  since  they  concern  directly  the  worker  engaged 
on  the  operation  and  may  easily  affect  his  earning  power, 
every  such  change  before  becoming  effective  is  a  matter  for 
joint  negotiation,  agreement  and  record  by  both  parties.  In 
the  course  of  an  early  arbitration  decision^*'^  bearing  on  this 
matter,  Chairman  Williams  ruled  as  follows: 

"  In  order  that  disputes  about  specifications  shall  be  mini- 
mized, the  union  shall  be  provided  with  a  copy  of  all  specifica- 
tions, for  the  exclusive  use  of  its  member  of  the  price  commit- 
tee. He  shall  make  proper  examination  of  such  specifications, 
and  if  he  objects  to  any  on  account  of  undue  age,  irregularity 
or  other  reason,  he  shall  give  notice  of  same,  and  endeavor  at 
once  to  arrive  at  an  adjustment  and  agreement.  In  case  no 
such  notice  is  served  within  a  reasonable  time,  all  such  specifica- 
tions shall  be  deemed  regular  and  in  force.  If  there  be  a  serious 
lapse  of  standard  by  the  workers  below  the  specifications,  the 
union  shall  be  notified  and  shall  co-operate  with  the  company 
in  restoring  the  standard  of  the  specification." 


802     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

Changes  in  rates,  on  the  other  hand,  are  entirely  a  matter 
of  collective  adjustment.  They  cannot  be  instituted,  even 
provisionally,  by  act  of  the  management.  They  do  not  be- 
come effective  until  they  have  first  gone  to  the  Price  Com- 
mittee and  been  adjusted  there  on  the  basis  of  the  changed 
conditions. 

When  the  Trade  Board  is  called  upon  to  fix  a  rate  re- 
garding which  there  is  a  disagreement,  the  chairman  of  the 
Board  endeavors  first  of  all  to  bring  the  parties  closer  to- 
gether on  the  basis  of  the  agreed  facts.  If  he  is  successful 
in  leading  them  to  agree  on  a  rate,  he  then  merely  gives  offi- 
cial sanction  to  it.  Otherwise,  he  may,  as  an  alternative  to 
fixing  the  rate  himself  on  the  spot,  recommend  a  temporary 
rate  to  be  applied  experimentally  and  subject  to  revision. 
Or  he  may  refer  it  back  to  the  rate  committee  for  further 
investigation  or  observation,  or  for  elaboration  as  to  detail. 
Thus,  in  one  instance,^^*  where  the  price  committee  had  been 
unable  to  agree  on  certain  rates,  the  union  requested  the 
Trade  Board  to  investigate  and  decide.  The  Trade  Board 
made  a  ruling  with  respect  only  to  basic  rates  for  the  opera- 
tions in  question,  and  instructed  the  price  committee  to  work 
out  necessary  differentials,  thereby  narrowing  the  field  of 
possible  controversy. 

When  the  case  of  a  disputed  rate  goes  to  the  Trade  Board, 
it  is  sometimes  necessary  for  the  Chairman  to  make  a  per- 
sonal investigation  before  he  can  reach  a  satisfactory  decision. 
The  investigation,  however,  extends  merely  to  the  facts  in  the 
case.  In  deciding  upon  what  is  a  fair  price  for  a  particular 
operation,  the  impartial  chairman  is  not  expected  to  de- 
termine questions  of  ultimate  justice.  He  is  guided  by  a 
provision  in  the  agreement  which  reads:  "  In  fixing  the 
rates,  the  Board  is  restricted  to  the  following  rule:  changed 
rates  must  correspond  to  the  changed  work  and  new  rates 
must  be  based  upon  old  rates  where  possible."  Where  this 
is  not  possible,  existing  market  rates  may  become  the  cri- 
terion of  fairness.  In  other  words,  usage  and  antecedent 
collective  bargaining  or  arbitration  decisions  provide  the 
point  of  departure  from  which  the  Trade  Board  proceeds. 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  808 

It  has  no  power  under  the  agreement  to  revise  or  alter  this 
basis. 

The  setting  of  piece  rates  for  new  work  consequently  in- 
volves various  questions  of  fact,  and  for  this  reason  it  is 
necessary  for  those  who  are  charged  with  that  function  to  be 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  character  of  the  work  and  the 
conditions  under  which  it  is  and  has  been  performed  in  the 
particular  shop.  It  is  also  necessary  that  adequate  records 
be  kept  of  the  various  operations  and  of  the  rates  paid  for 
each. 

With  the  multiplicity  of  operations  and  of  variations  in 
them,  it  sometimes  happens  that  detailed  specifications  and 
differential  prices  are  not  a  matter  of  written  record,  but 
merely  of  custom  or  informal  understanding.  Whenever  a 
change  in  the  work  or  the  rate  is  alleged  by  either  side,  the 
first  question,  obviously,  is  as  to  the  facts.  In  one  such  case 
before  the  Trade  Board, ^**^  the  union  complained  that  the 
firm  had  reduced  the  brushing  rate  on  Palm  Beaches  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  union  and  requested  the  restoration  of 
former  rates.  The  firm  contended  that  it  had  always  paid 
the  lower  rate  for  Palm  Beach  coats  and  that  the  higher 
had  been  paid  only  for  half  and  quarter  lined  coats.  The 
Trade  Board  found  that  "  the  case  turns  on  the  facts,  which 
the  firm  feels  can  be  checked  up  by  an  analysis  of  payroll 
and  production  records."  The  Board  directed  that  this  be 
done,  promising  to  review  the  case  if  it  were  not  disposed 
of  by  such  an  analysis. 

B-egvilar  procedure  demands  that  nothing  shall  be  left 
indeterminate  in  the  definition  of  piece  work  operations 
and  prices.  For  only  by  having  them  duly  wi'itten  out  and 
signed  and  authorized  by  both  parties  can  the  possibility  of 
arbitrary  action  later  be  avoided.  Disputes  over  rates  hinge 
largely  on  conflicting  interpretations  in  applying  prices  and 
specifications.  In  one  case^^^  where  the  union  complained 
that  the  firm  had  reduced  the  rate  on  pressing  pockets  on 
certain  models  which  the  firm  claimed  were  not  included  in 
the  original  rate,  there  was  no  written  schedule  to  show 
whose  claim  was  correct.     The  payroll  evidence,  however, 


304     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

indicated  that  the  usage  of  the  previous  year  justified  the 
firm.  While  the  Board,  accordingly,  denied  the  request  of 
the  union,  it  took  occasion  to  point  out  that  "  any  correction 
in  rates  and  specifications,  however  obvious,  should  be  a  mat- 
ter of  formal  record  with  the  firm  and  the  deputy,  so  that 
questions  of  this  sort  need  not  arise."  And  on  another  occa- 
sion^" the  Board  declared:  "When  rates  are  adjusted  by 
negotiation  there  is  no  good  reason  why  they  should  not  be 
made  a  matter  of  record  and  be  signed  by  the  representatives' 
of  both  sides." 

Once  the  specifications  and  prices  are  fixed  by  agreement 
between  the  firm  and  the  union,  they  are  legally  binding  on 
the  workers  and  the  foreman  in  the  shop.  The  power  of 
changing  them  rests,  imder  the  agreement,  with  the  original 
parties,  or  at  their  instance,  with  the  Trade  Board.  In  the 
words  of  the  agreement:  "After  the  specification  and  rate 
have  been  authorized  by  the  Rate  Committee,  there  can  be 
no  alteration  of  the  terms  either  by  the  company  or  the 
people  without  permission  from  the  Rate  Committee."  The 
logic  of  this  procedure  may  be  illustrated  by  a  case"^  of 
collusion  between  a  section  head  and  the  pocket  makers  on 
ai  temporary  arrangement  whereby  work  was  decreased  with- 
out a  corresponding  decrease  in  the  rate  and  without  the 
attention  of  the  foreman  and  the  production  manager  being 
called  to  the  arrangement.  The  firm  petitioned  the  Trade 
Board  to  declare  the  change  invalid  and  to  restore  the  es- 
tablished rate.  The  Trade  Board,  directing  the  restoration 
of  previous  specifications  and  rates,  declared :  "  The  workers 
benefited  by  the  arrangement  during  a  period  of  several 
months,  and  while  the  Board  must  disapprove  of  changes 
in  specifications  and  rates  except  by  joint  action  of  those 
authorized  to  make  such  changes,  it  does  not  appear  that 
anything  more  than  a  temporary  arrangement  was  contem- 
plated or  that  the  pocket  makers  can  contend  justly  for  its 
continuance  indefinitely.  The  section  head  is  reprimanded 
for  his  action,  however  innocent  his  intent     *     *     *." 

A  case"^  in  which  the  workers  themselves  decreased  their 
work  in  disregard  of  the  specifications  and  without  a  corre- 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  305 

spending  adjustment  of  the  price  is  that  of  certain  edge 
stitchers,  whose  rates  had  been  established  by  agreement. 
For  stitching  all  around  the  rate  was  six  cents ;  for  breaking 
off  it  was  seven  cents.  The  workers  subsequently  found  the 
latter  rate  was  more  favorable,  and  upon  their  complaint  the 
foreman  ordered  them  to  break  off  on  all  edge  stitching  and 
he  would  pay  the  rate  of  seven  cents.  Instead  of  this  the 
workers  went  ahead  as  previously,  stitching  all  around  in 
some  cases  and  breaking  off  in  others,  according  to  conveni- 
ence, but  they  were  paid  a  imif  orm  rate  of  seven  cents,  until 
the  firm  discovered  the  practice.  The  Trade  Board  sup- 
ported the  firm  in  putting  a  stop  to  it,  holding  that  "  the 
rates  of  six  and  seven  cents  for  edge  stitching  were  estab- 
lished in  regular  order,"  and  that  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
seven-cent  rate  is  to  be  applied  to  work  for  which  a  six-cent 
rate  is  established  merely  because  the  workers  saw  fit  to  do 
the  work  other  than  directed  and  got  by  with  it  for  a  time 
*  *  *.  The  Board  holds,  therefore,  that  the  seven-cent  rate 
i«  to  apply  when  the  stitching  is  broken  off,  but  is  not  to 
apply  to  stitching  all  around.  If  the  rate  for  stitching  all 
around  can  be  shown  to  be  too  low;  that  it  was  not  estab- 
lished regularly  or  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts  in  the 
case,  or  that  it  is  a  temporary  rate  the  earning  power  of 
which  has  been  found  to  be  inadequate,  the  Board  will  review 
the  situation  on  that  basis." 

The  same  problem  arose  in  a  modified  form^^*  in  another 
shop  of  the  same  firm.  Here  the  foreman  permitted  the  edge 
stitchers  to  stitch  all  around,  yet  paid  the  rate  for  breaking 
off.  This  was  done  for  a  year  or  more  and  the  firm  accepted 
the  work.  "  Now  the  firm  is  insisting  that  the  edge  stitchers 
break  off  and  accept  the  established  rate.  The  workers  quite 
naturally  insist  that  having  been  permitted  to  stitch  all 
around  for  so  long  a  time  they  should  not  be  asked  at  this 
time  to  do  more  work  for  the  same  price  *  *  *.  The  ignor- 
ing of  specifications  by  foremen  or  making  specifications  to 
suit  their  convenience  is  occurring  with  regrettable  fre- 
quency. It  is  a  holdover,  perhaps,  from  the  days  when  speci- 
fications and  rates  were  not  a  matter  of  agreement  and 


306     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

record,  but  it  can  have  no  place  under  the  present  arrange- 
ment. In  this  case  if  the  foreman  acted  on  his  own  authority 
he  robbed  the  firm  of  a  quality  of  work  to  which  it  was  en- 
titled and  for  which  it  had  paid.  If  specifications  are  to 
have  any  significance  they  must  be  observed  strictly  and  fore- 
men who  do  not  observe  them  are  a  liability  to  the  firm.  The 
Trade  Board  has  no  other  recourse  in  this  case  but  to  rule 
that  the  firm  must  accept  the  consequences  of  the  poor  judg- 
ment exercised  by  its  foreman     *     *     *." 

In  the  case  just  cited  the  time  element  plays  a  significant 
part.  The  fact  that  a  year  had  passed  without  any  action 
by  the  firm  in  repudiation  of  the  arrangement  improperly 
entered  into  by  the  foreman  gave  a  presumption  of  right  to 
the  workers'  claim  for  its  continuance.  Through  the  pass- 
age of  time  a  usage  had  become  established  and  a  correspond- 
ing expectation  set  up  in  the  minds  of  the  workers  that  the 
firm's  apparent  acquiescence  was  consent.  Long  usage  or 
custom,  whatever  its  manner  of  origin,  acquires  the  force  of 
agreement.  As  such  it  may  supersede  earlier  agreement  and 
can  only  be  set  aside,  in  turn,  by  subsequent  agreement  be- 
tween the  parties.  On  this  principle,  a  specification  or  a  rate 
that  is  not  enforced  over  a  considerable  period  of  time  lapses 
by  disuse  and  the  actual  practice  becomes  the  rule  or  law. 
Thus  in  one  decision"^  the  Trade  Board  held  that  "  a  dis- 
puted rate  becomes  obsolete  if  not  used  or  if  the  operation 
is  changed  to  avoid  the  dispute."  And  in  another  case"® 
the  union  requested  the  Trade  Board  to  fix  a  rate  for  top 
seam  pressers  in  a  certain  house  on  the  ground  that  addi- 
tional work  had  been  given  to  them  in  the  form  of  shrinking 
fronts.  The  firm  claimed  that  this  operation  was  properly 
a  part  of  their  work,  though  no  written  specifications  for  it 
existed.  The  Trade  Board  concluded  "  that  whether  they 
were  supposed  to  do  it  or  not,  the  top  seam  pressers  have 
not  been  shrinking  fronts.  It  may  be  inferred  that  they  were 
not  shrinking  fronts  when  the  rates  were  passed  on  by  the 
leveling  commission.  In  the  absence  of  specifications  and  on 
the  evidence  presented,  the  Trade  Board  rules  that  this  is 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  307 

additional  work  and  refers  the  matter  to  the  price  committee 
to  fix  appropriate  rates." 

When  the  Trade  Board  midertakes  the  adjustment  of  dis- 
puted rates,  where  an  operation  has  been  changed,  it  may- 
employ  several  methods  for  determining  the  extent  of  ad- 
justment called  for  in  the  particular  situation.  It  may  make 
direct  comparative  observations  of  the  old  operation  and  the 
new  and  thus  estimate  the  relative  degree  of  difficulty  of 
the  one  over  the  other.  Or  it  may  proceed  by  means  of  time 
studies  of  the  operation  in  question,  these  to  be  conducted  by 
the  firm  and  the  union  either  jointly  or  independently.  In 
either  case  the  "  changed  rates  must  correspond  to  the 
changed  work."  To  illustrate  :^^^  the  union  complains  that 
the  edge  and  shape  presser  has  been  given  additional  work 
and  requests  that  his  piece  rate  be  adjusted  with  back  pay. 
The  rate  for  edge  and  shape  pressing  has  been  5.74.  Re- 
cently the  firm  has  changed  from  hand  to  machine  collars. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  shape  pressing  is  now  more  difficult. 
"  The  Trade  Board  has  observed  the  operation  in  question 
and  feels  that  a  rate  of  6.50  for  edge  and  shape  pressing 
machine-made  collars  is  fair.  This  rate  is  to  be  retroactive 
to  the  change  from  hand  to  machine." 

The  method  of  time  study  as  a  measure  of  the  change  in 
work  is  exemplified  in  a  case^^*  where  the  firm  requested  the 
Trade  Board  to  set  a  differential  rate  on  pressing  inseam 
flat  at  the  crotch,  which  work  was  added  to  the  regular  seam 
pressing.  The  rate  without  the  added  operation  was  4.14. 
The  results  of  three-time  tests  were  submitted  at  the  hear- 
ing. The  Board  directed  that  further  tests  be  made,  as  the 
union  and  the  firm  had  been  unable  to  agree  on  the  tests 
and  had  made  separate  reports.  The  Trade  Board  set  a 
rate  of  4.55  for  seam  pressing  to  include  the  added  operation, 
the  differential  representing  "  about  the  relationship  of  the 
new  work  to  the  old  ". 

THE    MAINTENANCE    OF    EARNINGS 

The  principle  underlying  and  governing  all  these  adjust- 
ments of  piece  rates  is  the  maintenance  of  hourly  earnings 


308     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  the  workers  concerned.  The  theory  is  that  a  worker  is 
entitled  to  his  customary  earnings  as  long  as  he  is  occupied 
at  his  own  work  or  at  work  requiring  an  equal  degree  of 
skill  or  effort.  If  the  necessary  degree  of  skill  or  eflFort  is 
raised  by  a  change  in  the  required  quahty  of  his  work  or 
its  intensity  or  in  the  method  of  performing  it,  so  that  he 
can  only  turn  out  fewer  garments  per  day  than  he  produced 
before,  the  piece  rate  for  his  operation  must  be  correspond- 
ingly increased  so  as  to  yield  him  the  same  earnings  per 
hour  as  he  previously  received.  The  converse  proposition, 
in  general,  also  holds.  The  principle  of  maintenance  of 
earnings  presupposes,  in  practice,  that  there  is  enough  work 
in  the  shop  to  keep  the  worker  fully  occupied  at  his  own 
operation.  It  becomes  inapplicable  when  work  is  slack,  i.e., 
when  he  must  wait  for  work.  For  in  that  situation  his 
earnings,  depending  as  they  do  on  output,  diminish  in  the 
same  ratio  as  his  total  production  declines. 

The  worker  is  entitled  to  maintain  his  earnings  as  against 
changes  in  his  work  initiated  by  and  on  behalf  of  manage- 
ment. But  he  cannot  make  the  same  claim  as  against  a  loss 
due  to  irregular  employment  in  slack  season — a  loss  in  which 
management  also  shares  and  for  which  it  is  not  wilfully 
responsible.  On  one  occasion^ ^®  the  union  requested  the 
Trade  Board  to  readjust  certain  rates  on  the  ground  that 
there  had  been  a  reduction  of  earnings  of  the  workers  in 
question.  The  Trade  Board  found  that  the  rates  compared 
favorably  with  market  rates,  but  that  the  chief  trouble  was 
lack  of  work.  "  In  part  at  least  this  is  a  result  of  general 
market  conditions  from  which  many  workers  have  suffered. 
As  a  general  rule,  the  Trade  Board  will  not  revise  rates 
passed  on  by  the  leveling  commission  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  operation  has  been  changed."  This  being  not  the 
case  in  the  present  instance,  the  Board  denied  the  union's 
request. 

At  a  time  of  lack  of  work  in  the  shop  the  union  may 
object  to  a  change  in  rates  corresponding  to  a  change 
in  specifications  that  would  leave  a  man  with  still  less  work 
to  do  and  therefore  with  earnings  still  further  curtailed. 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES         809 

This  was  the  situation  in  a  case^^^  where  a  firm  complained 
to  the  Trade  Board  that  the  union  refused  to  reduce  the 
piece  rate  on  collar  shape  pressing  in  keeping  with  the  re- 
duced work  on  the  operation.  The  union  did  not  deny  the 
subtraction  of  work  but  contended  that  because  of  scarcity 
of  work  a  reduction  in  rate  would  work  an  injustice  to  the 
collar  shape  presser,  whose  earnings  would  be  reduced  in 
the  same  proportion.  The  firm  then  proposed  to  give  him 
other  work  to  compensate  him  for  the  reduction,  without 
entaihng  any  loss  in  earnings  for  any  other  worker.  To 
this  the  union  agreed  and  proceeded  jointly  with  the  firm 
to  readjust  the  collar  shape  pressing  rate  to  conform  to  the 
change  in  operation.  \ 

A  change  in  specifications  may  consist  in  a  change  in  the 
proportion  of  garments  or  of  materials  of  certain  kinds  that 
are  handled  by  a  worker  in  the  daily  course  of  his  work. 
If  his  operation  on  one  model,  for  instance,  is  more  difficult 
or  time-consuming  than  on  another,  and  the  proportion  of 
the  former  model  in  the  total  number  of  garments  is  mate- 
rially increased,  this  will  constitute  ground  for  a  revision 
of  rates  upward,  so  as  to  maintain  earnings.  Even  where 
the  model  is  not  more  difficult  but  its  more  frequent  occur- 
rence brings  to  light  an  inferior  earning  power  of  the  rate 
originally  agreed  upon  for  it,  this  basic  rate  may  itself  be 
reconsidered.  A  certain  firm^^^  had  a  rate  of  19.35  for  regu- 
lar pockets,  with  a  differential  of  9.09  for  turned  pockets 
including  stitching.  Only  a  few  turned  pockets  had  been 
made  in  the  past.  The  firm  now  proposed  to  make  practi- 
cally all  of  its  pockets  turned.  The  extra  stitching  was  to  be 
given  to  a  week  worker  and  the  firm  petitioned  the  Trade 
Board  to  fix  a  rate  that  should  not  include  the  extra  stitch- 
ing. The  Trade  Board  found  that  there  had  been  no  way 
of  testing  the  adequacy  of  the  differential  for  turned  pockets, 
because  very  few  had  been  made.  But  "  with  all  pockets 
made  turned,  it  should  be  possible  to  determine  what  work 
is  necessary  to  maintain  earnings  *  *  *.  Tests  made  thus 
far  indicate  that  the  differential  of  9.09,  exclusive  of  extra 
stitching,  is  not  too  high  if  all  the  pockets  are  to  be  made 


310     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

turned."  And  the  Board  directed  this  differential  to  remain 
in  effect  for  the  reduced  operation  "  subject  to  later  review 
if  necessary." 

A  change  in  a  worker's  operation  may  amount  to  a  trans- 
fer of  work  or  the  substitution  of  one  operation  for  another. 
This  happens  when  the  worker  is  shifted  from  one  type  of 
garment  to  another,  as,  for  example,  from  sack  coat  to  over- 
coat ;  or  vice-versa.  In  such  a  case  the  new  work  may  differ 
so  markedly  from  the  old  as  to  make  it  difficult  to  base  the 
new  rates  upon  the  old.  If  there  is  no  established  rate  for 
the  new  work  the  worker  may  be  temporarily  placed  on  an 
hour  work  basis,  while  the  piece  rate  for  the  new  operation 
is  being  determined  by  the  price  committee.  The  considera- 
tions by  which  the  committee  is  guided  in  their  determination 
are  those  (1)  of  the  worker's  previous  earnings,  (2)  of  his 
performance  on  hour  work  or  under  time  tests,  and  (3)  of 
the  prevaih'ng  rate  paid  for  similar  work  in  the  market.  A 
firm  complained  to  the  Trade  Board^^^  that  it  had  failed  to 
reach  an  agreement  with  the  union  covering  trimming  on 
ready-made  overcoats.  The  Board  found  that  the  main  dif- 
ficulty lay  in  reaching  an  agreement  as  to  the  basis  for  de- 
termining rates  in  this  case.  Earlier  in  the  season  rates  had 
been  adjusted  to  cover  trimming  on  ready-made  sack  coats. 
The  Board  ruled  that  "  the  rates  for  overcoats  should  be 
fixed  at  a  figure  that  would  enable  the  workers  to  maintain 
previous  earnings  "  on  sack  coats,  and  directed  an  adjust- 
ment on  that  basis. 

Any  piece  rate  adjustment  by  calculation  in  advance, 
whether  by  estimating  differentials  in  work  or  measming 
them  by  time  study  or  computing  them  from  output  on  hour 
work  or  by  comparison  with  market  rates  is  liable  to  appreci- 
able error.  Whichever  method  is  used  in  arriving  at  the  new 
rate  must  be  supplemented  by  actual  experiment  and  obser- 
vation. The  new  rate  must  be  tested  in  the  light  of  its  actual 
earning  power  to  determine  whether  it  is  a  "  fair  rate."  For 
this  reason  when  rates  are  set  by  the  price  committee,  op 
even  by  the  Trade  Board,  they  are  not  final.  In  the  language 
of  the  agreement :    "  New  rates  are  always  provisional^  and 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  311 

temporary  and  are  subject  to  review  after  sufficient  period 
of  trial  to  determine  their  merit.  The  Committee  seeks  to 
make  the  temporary  rate  as  nearly  equitable  as  possible,  both 
for  its  effect  on  the  people  and  to  save  a  repetition  of  the 
negotiation."  But  this  is  not  always  possible,  and  the  mat- 
ter goes  to  the  Trade  Board  for  review.  A  case  in  jK)int^^^ 
is  one  where  the  firm  petitioned  the  Trade  Board  for  a  re- 
vision of  the  temporary  rate  for  stitching  French  facings. 
The  union  admitted  the  right  of  the  firm  to  request  a  revision 
of  a  temporary  rate,  but  contended  that  a  comparative  time 
test  should  be  made  of  the  operation  on  the  two  models :  the 
old  and  the  new.  The  Trade  Board  directed  that  such  a  test 
be  made  jointly.  The  results  of  the  tests  were  unfavorable 
to  the  workers  and  inconclusive.  The  Trade  Board  held 
that  "  time  tests,  covering,  necessarily,  a  limited  amount  of 
work,  should  not  be  the  sole  criterion  of  what  is  a  fair  rate." 
The  rate  was  then  adjusted  in  the  light  of  former  hour  earn- 
ings of  these  workers. 

In  another  case^^^  the  Trade  Board  had  reduced  the  rate 
for  off-pressing  from  4.59  to  4.24  because  of  a  change  in 
operation.  When  the  new  rate  was  put  into  effect  by  the 
firm,  the  earnings  of  the  off-pressers  fell  below  their  previous 
level,  and  the  union  complained  to  the  Board.  The  union 
contended  that  the  rate  established  by  the  Trade  Board  was 
intended  to  maintain  earnings ;  that  earnings  were  not  main- 
tained, thus  demonstrating  that  the  change  in  operation  did 
not  reduce  the  time  required  in  the  degree  contemplated 
by  the  Trade  Board,  and  that  reconsideration  of  the  rate 
was  necessary.  The  Trade  Board  directed  that  hourly 
earnings  of  off-pressers  be  computed  for  comparable  periods 
for  two  successive  years,  and  with  these  figures  of  earnings 
as  a  basis  referred  the  matter  of  adjusting  the  rate  to  the 
Price  Committee. 

In  order  that  no  injustice  shall  be  done  to  workers  who  ac- 
cept a  temporary  rate  that  later  proves  to  be  too  low,  the 
Trade  Board^^^  has  held  that  such  workers  are  entitled  to 
back  pay  for  the  difference  between  the  temporary  rate  and 
the  revised  permanent  rate.    This  guarantee  also  makes  for 


312      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

better  shop  discipline,  inasmuch  as  it  reduces  the  friction  at- 
tending the  introduction  of  a  new  rate. 

When  an  operation  or  a  method  of  work  is  materially 
changed  at  the  instance  of  the  firm,  so  as  temporarily  to 
impair  the  efficiency  of  the  workers  concerned,  without  neces- 
sarily altering  the  amount  of  work  required  of  them,  they  are 
entitled  to  be  placed  on  an  hour  work  basis.  They  remain 
on  hour  work  only  long  enough  to  gain  the  necessary  fa- 
miliarity with  the  changed  operation.  After  that  they  return 
to  piece  work,  either  at  their  former  rate  or  at  a  new  rate 
agreed  upon  on  the  basis  of  a  change  in  the  work.  On  this 
point  the  agreement  provides  that  "  in  the  event  a  piece 
worker  is  required  to  change  his  mode  of  operation  so  that  it 
causes  him  to  lose  time  in  learning,  his  case  may  be  brought 
to  the  Rate  Committee  for  its  disposition."  In  one  such  in- 
stanced^® a  man  had  refused  to  continue  working  at  his  cus- 
tomary piece  rate  after  the  character  of  his  work  had  been 
changed.  The  firm  discharged  him.  At  the  hearing  he  con- 
tended that  the  work  should  have  been  done  on  an  hour  basis 
instead  of  by  the  piece.  The  Trade  Board  upheld  him  and 
ordered  his  reinstatement  with  pay  for  time  lost. 

In  another  case^^^  the  union  complained  that  the  company 
was  requiring  certain  piecers  to  do  their  work  in  a  new  way, 
and  the  change  was  resulting  in  loss  of  earnings.  The  work- 
ers claimed  that  the  new  method  had  seriously  hindered  their 
speed  and  asked  for  a  period  of  hour  work  in  order  to  get 
acquainted  with  the  new  method  of  handling.  The  Trade 
Board  observed  the  work  and  found  that  "  there  does  not 
seem  to  be  any  vital  difference  in  the  amount  of  work,  simply 
a  rearrangement  of  the  handling.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Trade 
Board  the  people  should  be  given  two  weeks  of  hour  work  to 
gain  facility  in  the  new  method."  In  keeping  with  this  prin- 
ciple, also,  is  the  Board's  decision  in  another  case.^^®  The 
Board  there  ruled  that  a  worker  transferred  to  another  shop 
was  entitled  to  hour  work  for  the  time  needed  to  acquire  ordi- 
nary acquaintance  with  the  work,  to  the  same  extent  as  were 
the  workers  originally  in  the  shop  when  the  new  operation 
was  introduced. 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  818 

The  principle,  stated  in  general  terms,  is  that  workers  are 
not  to  suffer  in  their  earnings  when  their  output  is  tempo- 
rarily reduced  in  consequence  of  an  act  of  the  management. 
Thus  stated,  the  principle  applies  not  merely  to  piece  workers 
on  hour  rates,  but  also  to  week  workers  with  standards  of 
production,  as  illustrated  in  the  following  case:^^*  The 
firm  in  this  instance  had  introduced  a  new  method  of  off- 
pressing  and  a  new  quota  for  the  pressers.  The  section  was 
divided  into  three  squads  of  twelve  men  who  were  given 
special  training  in  the  new  method  while  being  paid  on  an 
hour  basis.  But  while  the  first  squad  was  retained  under  in- 
struction for  three  weeks,  the  others  were  given  only  one 
week,  with  a  consequent  loss  in  their  quota  of  work  and  their 
earnings  during  two  weeks  following  their  return  to  piece 
work.  The  Trade  Board  held  that  since  "  the  innovation  was 
at  the  instance  of  the  company,  *  *  *  any  loss  attending 
the  inauguration  of  the  new  system  should  be  borne  by  the 
company,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  off-pressers  are 
responsible  for  the  reduced  production.  That  has  not  been 
shown  in  this  case  and  the  Trade  Board  directs  that  the  losses 
for  these  two  weeks  for  the  off-pressers  shall  be  paid." 

The  determination  of  hourly  rates  for  piece  workers  who 
are  temporarily  on  an  hour  basis,  is  provided  for  in  the  agree- 
ment as  follows :  "In  case  workers  are  changed  from  piece 
to  hour  work,  the  hour  rates  for  such  piece  workers  shall  be 
based  on  their  earnings  on  piece  work."  In  this  way  the 
workers'  earnings  are  guaranteed  pending  their  return  to 
piece  work.  The  procedure  to  be  followed  in  computing  the 
hourly  rate  of  any  piece  worker  was  laid  down  in  a  decision^ ^** 
by  Mr.  Williams  in  1917.  He  ruled,  in  substance,  that  in 
arriving  at  a  basis  for  hour  work,  the  company  should  take 
the  average  of  the  piece  work  earnings  of  the  individual  con- 
cerned during  a  period  of  four  full  weeks,  and  base  his  hour 
work  on  such  average  piece  work  earnings.  And,  in  con- 
clusion, Mr.  Williams  stated:  "  The  purpose  is  to  base  hour 
work  on  full  time  piece  work,  and  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible, 
including  slack  work  periods  of  piece  work  on  the  hour  work 
rate." 


814      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

It  is  customary  for  firms  to  re-figure  hour  rates  from  time 
to  time — in  a  few  cases  on  their  own  initiative,  more  com- 
monly at  the  request  of  the  workers — in  order  that  these  rates 
may  reflect  changes  in  the  piece-work  earnings  of  the 
workers.  For  this  reason  it  is  all  the  more  important  that 
they  be  based  on  full-time  earnings,  since  otherwise  they 
would  be  too  low.  In  one  case^^^  the  union  complained  that 
the  firm  had  not  figured  the  hour  rate  properly  in  the  case  of 
several  workers  and  requested  the  Trade  Board  to  inform 
the  firm  of  the  proper  way.  The  Board  found  that  *'  the 
difficulty  in  this  case  arose  from  slack  work  and  the  absence 
of  full-time  employment  over  a  sufficient  period  to  test 
properly  the  earning  power  of  the  piece  rates  in  question." 
The  Trade  Board  accordingly  suggested  that  an  earlier 
period  be  selected  until  such  time  as  there  may  be  full  time 
work  again. 

Not  only  are  hour  rates  to  be  computed  on  the  basis  of  a 
normal  flow  of  work,  but,  according  to  a  Trade  Board  de- 
cision,^^^  four  weeks  must  be  selected  "  when  piece  rates  were 
permanently  fixed  and  when  workers  had  had  opportunity 
to  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  work." 

The  principle  of  guaranteed  earnings  for  piece  workers  on 
hour  work  is  subject  to  the  same  qualifications  as  the  hour 
rate  itself.  They  are  both  based  on  full-time  employment. 
Thus,  when  work  becomes  slack,  the  worker  whose  hour  rate 
has  been  computed  on  full-time  piece-work  earnings,  is  not 
guaranteed  against  a  reduction  in  his  rate  corresponding  to 
the  reduction  in  his  earning  power  at  such  a  time.  To  illus- 
trate :  the  union  on  one  occasion^^^  complained  that  a  canvas 
baster  employed  by  the  firm  was  not  making  the  earnings 
guaranteed  by  the  Trade  Board,  and  requested  that  a  proper 
rate  be  set  for  the  operation.  In  a  previous  decision,  when 
the  worker  in  question  had  been  transferred  from  hand  to 
machine  work,  the  Trade  Board  had  ruled  that  his  new  piece 
rate  must  be  such  as  to  protect  his  previous  earnings,  namely, 
$1  per  hour.  The  case  turned,  therefore,  on  an  interpreta- 
tion of  that  earlier  decision,  particularly  as  to  whether  it  was 
intended  to  guarantee  earnings  irresi)ective  of  the  amount 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  315 

of  work  going  through  the  shop.  The  chairman  ruled  that 
"  the  stipulated  earnings  of  $1  per  hour  was  what  the  worker 
should  earn  on  full-time  work  and  that  it  was  not  intended 
to  guarantee  those  earnings  when  work  was  slack.  *  *  * 
Hourly  rates  are  based  on  full-time  employment.  It  is  not 
contended  that  the  rate  in  question  would  be  inadequate  un- 
der conditions  of  full-time  employment  *  *  *."  In  view  of 
these  and  other  facts  the  Board  denied  the  request  of  the 
union  for  a  revision  of  the  rate. 

The  status  of  a  piece  worker  on  an  hourly  basis  differs 
somewhat  from  that  of  a  week  worker.  It  differs  in  the  first 
place  in  that  the  piece  worker  is  subject,  as  illustrated  in  the 
case  just  cited,  to  periodic  adjustments  of  his  hour  rate  in 
accordance  with  the  flow  of  work  in  the  shop  and  his  own 
piece-rate  earning  power.  It  differs,  further,  in  being 
merely  temporary.  "A  piece  worker^^^  with  minimum  guar- 
antee is  customarily  employed  on  one  kind  of  work  in  a 
specific  section,  with  limited  duration  of  the  guarantee  till 
the  worker  becomes  acquainted  with  the  particular  piece 
work  operation.  The  whole  arrangement  in  such  a  case  looks 
forward  to  permanent  transfer  to  piece  work,  and  the  mini- 
mum is  maintained  only  as  a  temporary  arrangement."  In 
a  piece  work  market  like  Chicago  the  tendency  is  to  put  all 
speciahzed  workers  on  a  piece  basis  as  far  as  practicable. 

The  principle  of  maintenance  of  earnings  applies  no  less 
to  workers  transferred  from  a  week  work  to  a  piece  work 
basis  than  it  does  to  piece  workers  changed  either  tempo- 
rarily or  permanently  to  hour  work.  To  illustrate:  The 
union  in  one  case^^*^  complained  that  F,  employed  previously 
by  the  firm  as  a  week  worker,  was  now  on  piece  work  and 
could  not  earn  as  much  as  on  week  work.  Owing  to  the 
many  operations  allotted  to  the  worker,  the  union  felt  that 
piece  work  rates  were  impracticable.  The  worker  had  re- 
ceived $40  at  week  rates,  making  vents  and  yokes.  He  was 
put  on  piece  work  when  the  shop  reopened  with  the  season. 
His  earnings  for  five  weeks  on  piece  work  averaged  only 
$20.57  per  week.  The  Trade  Board  directed  that  his  earn- 
ings be  equalized  during  the  time  he  had  been  on  piece  work, 


316     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

on  the  basis  of  his  previous  weekly  rates  of  $40,  and  that 
he  be  Umited  to  two  operations,  for  a  week  or  more,  to  de- 
termine whether  an  adjustment  of  piece  rates  was  practicable. 

When  such  an  adjustment  is  not  practicable,  that  is  to 
say,  when  the  transfer  of  the  worker  from  week  to  piece 
work  entails  for  him  a  loss  of  earnings,  the  union  has  ground 
for  protesting  against  the  transfer  itself.  This  situation  is 
apt  to  arise  if  the  transfer  to  piece  work  is  made  at  a  time 
when  there  is  lack  of  work  in  the  shop,  because  at  such  a 
time  piece  work  earnings  immediately  reflect  the  slack.  In 
one  such  case^^^  thq  union  complained  that  two  workers  had 
been  changed  from  week  work  to  piece  work  with  loss  of 
earnings  and  requested  their  return  to  week  work.  In  its 
decision  the  Trade  Board  declared  its  belief  "  in  a  wide  appli- 
cation of  the  piece  work  system.  It  is  of  the  opinion,  how- 
ever, that  a  change  to  it  from  week  work  should  be  made 
when  earnings  can  be  maintained.  To  do  otherwise  is  to 
tend  strongly  to  develop  opposition  to  piece  work  *  *  *. 
The  Trade  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  two  workers 
should  be  retained  on  week  work  for  the  limited  time  neces- 
sary for  the  volume  of  work  to  become  such  that  their  for- 
mer earnings  can  be  maintained.  It,  therefore,  grants  the 
union's  request." 

The  general  principle  that  workers  shall  not  suffer  loss 
in  earnings  by  reason  either  of  orders  or  of  the  fault  of  man- 
agement, finds  application  in  a  variety  of  cases.  For  ex- 
ample, it  is  customary  for  workers  to  bushel  any  of  their 
own  work  that  is  found  defective  by  the  examiner.  If,  how- 
ever, the  defect  is  not  discovered  and  reported  before  the 
work  has  gone  through  another  section,  thereby  raising  a 
possible  question  as  to  the  responsibility  for  the  defect,  the 
worker  charged  with  it  may  not  be  required  to  bushel  the 
work  without  additional  compensation.  Moreover,  if  a  defect 
in  work  is  due  to  a  previous  defective  operation  on  the  gar- 
ment that  has  been  passed  by  the  examiner,  the  burden  of 
busheling  it  may  not  be  imposed  on  the  worker  who  last 
handled  it.  The  management  by  virtue  of  passing  the  gar- 
ment in  the  first  place  has  assimied  responsibility  for  its  sub- 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  81T 

sequent  defective  condition.  In  a  certain  case^*^  turning 
on  this  principle,  the  union  requested  pay  for  lost  time  for 
G,  an  edge  stitcher.  The  management  had  required  this  man 
to  bushel  coats  that  on  their  own  admission  could  not  be 
busheled,  because  the  edge  basting  was  bad.  After  hearing 
the  evidence  the  Trade  Board  expressed  the  opinion  that 
"  work  was  being  required  of  G  that  could  not  be  reasonably 
expected  of  him."  It  found  that  the  basting  was  ripped  on 
one  coat  and  removed  on  another.  *'  Under  such  a  con- 
dition it  is  difficult  to  see  what  ground  the  management  had 
for  insisting  on  the  busheling.  G's  proposal  to  bushel  the 
coats  after  they  had  been  re-basted  would  seem  to  be  a  fair 
one  and  as  much  as  could  be  expected.  The  management 
seems  to  have  acted  inconsiderately."  And  the  Trade  Board 
directed  that  G  be  paid  for  one  hour  loss  of  time,  as  the 
refusal  to  give  him  work  had  no  justification. 

Loss  of  time  to  the  worker  through  no  fault  of  his  own 
occasionally  results  from  a  breakdown  of  machinery  and  a 
failure  on  the  part  of  the  management  to  repair  it  promptly. 
Such  was  the  cause  of  complaint  by  the  union  in  a  case^'* 
where  some  operators  lost  time  on  account  of  the  neglect  of 
the  firm  to  repair  their  machines  properly.  The  union  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  hearing  withdrew  its  claim  for  lost 
time,  but  requested  the  Trade  Board  to  direct  the  firm  to 
provide  adequate  machinist  service  thereafter.  The  Board, 
accordingly,  ruled  that  "  the  firm  will  see  to  it  that  machines 
are  repaired  promptly  and  that  if  a  machinist  is  not  available 
when  needed,  duplicate  machines  will  be  kept  in  repair.  This 
is  as  much  to  the  interest  of  the  firm  as  it  is  to  the  interest  of 
the  workers  *  *  *." 

A  clearer  case  of  this  sort**'  involving  fault  of  the  manage- 
ment is  that  of  N,  who  lost  time  on  account  of  the  condition 
of  her  machine  and  on  whose  behalf  the  union  requested 
compensation.  The  girl  stated  that  she  had  been  having 
trouble  with  her  machine  and  that  she  complained  about  it 
to  the  foreman  and  manager  before  going  on  her  vacation. 
An  examination  of  the  payroll  showed  that  in  the  week  follow- 
ing her  return  she  earned  $15.05,  or  at  a  rate  of  60  cents  an 


818     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

hour,  her  regular  hour  rate  being  89  cents.  The  Trade  Board 
expressed  the  belief  that  "  the  girl  has  suffered  some  loss  on 
account  of  the  condition  of  the  machine.  For  this  week  she 
seems  to  have  lost  about  29  cents  an  hour  for  24.85  hours, 
or  about  $7.20.  The  Trade  Board  directs  that  she  be  paid 
this  amount  as  an  offset  for  the  condition  of  the  machine 
which  prevented  her  from  making  her  usual  rate." 

Another  instance  of  loss  of  time  by  a  piece  worker  caused 
by  a  fault  of  management  and  therefore  compensable,  is  the 
following  :^***  The  union  accused  a  certain  foreman  of  pulling 
a  coat  away  from  P  and  preventing  him  from  getting  on 
with  his  work.  Because  of  this  interruption  the  man  claimed 
he  lost  two  coats  of  his  quota  and  pay  therefor  was  requested. 
The  evidence  in  the  case  was  rather  contradictory  and  the 
Trade  Board  decided  that  a  reasonable  settlement  would  be 
to  allow  P  one  coat  on  that  day's  quota. 

One  source  of  loss  of  time  for  the  workers  is  that  of  wait- 
ing for  work  in  the  shop.  This  is  a  condition  frequently 
beyond  the  power  of  management  to  control,  and  but  rarely 
due  to  bad  faith  or  gross  mismanagement.  Where  the  latter 
is  shown  to  be  the  case,  however,  the  Trade  Board  may 
penalize  the  responsible  official.  The  principle  of  compen- 
sating the  workers  for  loss  of  earnings  has  not  found  appli- 
cation in  these  cases  because  of  the  risk  of  abuse  involved  in 
such  a  practice.  In  a  case  of  this  type  brought  by  the  union 
before  the  Trade  Board." ^  compensation  was  asked  for  a 
certain  section  for  time  lost  waiting  in  the  shop.  The  union's 
claim  was  based  on  the  provision  in  the  agreement  (1916), 
reading  as  follows : 

"  Detention  in  Shop. — ^Workers  shall  not  be  detained  in  the 
shops  when  there  is  insuflBcient  work  for  them.  The  company, 
or  its  agent,  shall  exercise  due  foresight  in  calculating  the  work 
available  and  as  far  as  practicable  shall  call  only  enough  work- 
ers into  the  factory  to  do  the  work  in  sight.  And  if  a  greater 
number  report  for  work  than  there  is  work  for,  those  in  excess 
of  the  number  required  shall  be  promptly  notified  and  permitted 
to  leave  the  shop    *    *    *." 

In  the  case  under  consideration  the  Trade  Board  ruled  in 
favor  of  the  people's  petition.     The  firm  appealed  the  case 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  319 

and  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  affirmed  the 
decision  of  the  Trade  Board  insofar  as  it  ruled  about  wait- 
ing in  the  shop,  but  modified  that  decision  as  regards  the 
compensation  it  awarded  to  the  workers:  "  With  respect  to 
the  penalty  the  chairman  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  should  oper- 
ate to  discipline  the  party  found  guilty  of  offense,  rather 
than  as  an  attempt  to  compensate  for  the  loss,  and  the  award 
of  the  Trade  Board  is  altered  to  correspond  with  this  view. 
A  fine  of  $20  is,  therefore,  assessed  against  Superintendent 
S.  as  a  disciplinary  penalty,  to  be  paid  into  a  fund  which 
shall  be  held  in  trust  by  the  company  until  a  mutual  agree- 
ment shall  be  arrived  at  between  union  and  company  as  to 
the  disposition  of  fine  funds." 

The  question  of  pajdng  workers  for  time  spent  waiting  in 
the  shop  came  up  squarely  soon  afterward,**^  when  the  union 
petitioned  the  Trade  Board  on  behalf  of  certain  welt  makers 
for  pay  for  time  thus  lost  by  them.  The  Board  ruled  ad- 
versely on  the  claim  of  the  people.  Appeal  was  taken  to 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  and  Chairman  Williams  ruled,  in 
part,  as  follows: 

"  He  realizes  that  it  is  a  burden  for  people  to  have  to  wait  for 
work,  but  he  is  also  quite  clear  that  he  ought  not  to  invoke  a 
remedy  rejected  by  the  parties  in  interest  unless  the  situation 
is  very  desperate,  and  unless  all  other  remedies  have  failed.  He 
must  consider  also  whether  the  evil  complained  of  is  not  inherent 
in  and  inseparable  from  the  business  and  one  that  cannot  be 
completely  eradicated  so  long  as  the  present  interdependent 
sectional  system  continues.  The  chairman  invites  the  parties 
hereto  to  make  suggestions  looking  to  the  improvement  of  the 
waiting  evil.  He  is  disinclined,  however,  to  adopt  the  remedy 
of  paying  for  waiting  until  a  plan  is  devised  that  will  eliminate 
the  dangers  and  safeguard  against  its  possible  abuses." 

Waiting  in  the  shop  is  frequently  bound  up  with  the  ir- 
regular flow  of  work  through  the  sections.  Every  interrup- 
tion in  this  flow  and  every  change  in  the  proportion  of  work- 
ers in  the  various  sections  tends  to  upset  the  balance  in  the 
shop,  to  produce  congestion  at  some  points  in  the  process 
and  waiting  for  work  at  others.  One  of  the  underlying  prob- 
lems, therefore,  is  that  of  balancing  of  sections  as  a  condition 


320     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  regularizing  the  flow  of  work  through  the  shop.  In  a 
memorandum  to  the  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement 
of  1919  it  was  agreed  "  that  the  company  shall  undertake 
experiments  in  controlUng  the  flow  of  work  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  the  maximum  of  work  to  piece  workers  and  avoid 
waste  of  time.  The  union  promises  to  co-operate  in  the 
balancing  of  sections  upon  which  regularity  of  flow  of  work 
depends." 

Loss  of  time  to  the  worker  through  having  to  wait  for 
work  in  the  shop  is  not  compensated,  since  it  is  always  an 
unintended  result  of  factors  that  are  usually  beyond  the 
power  of  management  to  control  or  foresee.  Where  the 
management  is  demonstrably  at  fault,  however,  it  does  not 
escape  the  penalty  of  its  failure  to  keep  the  work  flowing. 
This  point  has  already  been  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Superin- 
tendent S,  above.  In  a  more  recent  Trade  Board  decision,^*^ 
the  principle  is  set  forth  as  follows :  "  Unless  very  definite 
evidence  can  be  furnished  to  prove  gross  negligence  or  bad 
judgment  on  the  part  of  the  officials,  no  redress  can  be  given 
under  the  ruling  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  If  a  worker 
has  to  wait  because  the  foreman  or  manager  has  not  used 
reasonable  care  in  supplying  (him  with  work)  the  manager 
may  be  fined,  but  there  is  no  other  redress."  In  other  words, 
as  in  the  case  of  seasonal  slackness  so  in  other  cases  of  lack 
of  work,  the  piece  worker  has  no  guarantee  against  loss  of 
earnings  from  idleness  in  the  shop.  On  the  other  hand,  such 
idleness  is  kept  at  a  minimum  partly  by  the  imposition  of 
fines  on  officials  of  the  firm  where  it  is  shown  to  be  prevent- 
able or  due  to  poor  management. 

WAGE    STANDARDIZATION    IN    THE    MARKET 

In  order  that  the  earnings  of  workers  of  a  given  grade 
in  the  market  may  be  protected  against  deterioration  from 
any  cause,  it  is  necessary  that  standards  be  set  up  not  only 
within  each  house  but  for  the  market  as  a  whole.  For 
workers  change  their  employment  from  one  house  to  another, 
and  any  discrepancies  in  wage  rates,  whether  of  piece  work- 
ers or  week  workers,  create  competitive  inequalities  among 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  821 

employers  and  dissatisfaction  among  workers.  For  this 
reason  the  Board  of  Arbitration  is  given  power  imder  the 
agreement  to  establish  wage  standards  for  the  market,  and 
in  accordance  with  these  to  equalize  the  rates  of  pay  of 
corresponding  groups  of  workers. 

In  connection  with  its  market  wage  decision  of  Decem- 
ber, 1919,  the  Board  of  Arbitration"*  authorized  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  "  levehng  commission,"  or  Committee  on  Dis- 
parities in  Rates,  to  be  presided  over  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Trade  Board.  The  task  of  this  Committee  was  to  investigate 
the  subject  of  relative  inequalities  in  rates  then  existing  in 
the  market  and  to  recommend  such  increases  for  underpaid 
sections  as  would  bring  them  up  to  the  market  rate.  In  Feb- 
ruary, 1920,  the  committee  made  its  report  and  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  approved  its  recommendations"*  as  to  specific 
rate  increases  and  declared  them  retroactive  to  December 
15,  1919,  when  the  general  wage  increase  had  gone  into 
eflFect. 

The  disparities  in  rates  as  between  different  houses  in  the 
market  evidently  were  very  considerable  in  some  instances. 
It  is  significant  of  the  strength  of  the  union,  therefore,  that 
all  the  leveling  was  upward.  The  extent  of  it  is  suggested 
by  a  case  brought"®  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  a 
question  of  interpretation  of  the  award,  late  in  March,  1920. 
A  petition,  filed  by  the  representative  of  the  vestmakers,  set 
forth  that  Mr.  G.,  labor  manager,  had  advised  a  certain  con- 
tractor not  to  give  the  back  pay  due  on  account  of  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  Disparities  in  Rates.  The  union  asked 
for  redress.  Mr.  G.  explained  that  he  understood  that  the 
award  by  the  leveling  committee  was  not  to  cost  the  employ- 
ers more  than  20  per  cent,  of  their  payroll,  and  in  this  case 
it  would  cost  the  contractor  considerably  more  than  20  per 
cent,  to  conform  to  the  award.  The  Board  of  Arbitration, 
however,  held  **  that  the  award  must  be  carried  out  as  uni- 
formly as  is  practicable  and  that  to  make  an  exception  for 
this  contractor  would  be  without  justification.  As  regards 
the  20  per  cent,  limit,  this  was  an  estimate,  made  in  Decem- 


322     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ber  on  the  best  information  then  available,  but  was  not  a 
fixed  limit." 

The  whole  trend  of  wage  adjustments  through  the  medium 
of  the  impartial  machinery  has  been  in  the  direction  of  secur- 
ing greater  uniformity  in  rates  if  not  in  the  actual  earnings 
of  workers.  The  union  has  favored  such  standardization 
partly  because  it  makes  possible  the  elimination  of  individual 
bargaining  together  with  the  consequent  dangers  to  mini- 
mum standards  and  to  organization  discipline,  and  partly 
because  it  shifts  the  burden  of  competition  among  manu- 
facturers from  wage  standards  and  labor  conditions  gener- 
ally to  the  field  of  managerial  efficiency.  The  employers 
have,  on  the  whole,  accepted  standardization  of  wages  with 
little  opposition  up  to  a  certain  point.  They  have  been  con- 
cerned with  reducing  labor  turnover  in  the  height  of  the 
season,  when  free  competition  by  employers  for  workers  un- 
restrained by  considerations  of  union  scales  would  have 
brought  serious  embarrassment  to  some  of  them. 

We  have  already  seen  by  what  procedure  standardization 
of  piece  rates  was  accomplished  for  the  Chicago  market 
through  the  agency  of  the  leveling  commission.  A  like  com- 
mission about  the  same  time  rendered  a  similar  service  for 
week  workers  in  the  tailor  shops,  specifically  for  tailors, 
bushelmen,  bushel  girls,  and  examiners  or  inspector  tailors. 
In  this  case  it  was  proposed  by  the  union  that  minimum 
scales  should  be  set  up  for  the  various  groups  of  week 
workers,  based  on  a  classification  of  the  operations  performed 
by  them.  Such  a  classification  was  jointly  agreed  upon  and 
approved  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration,^*^  to  whom  the  com- 
mittee reported.  The  union's  argument  on  behalf  of  mini- 
mum scales  was  that  "  they  tend  to  stability  in  the  market 
and  to  prevent  constant  irritation  and  dissatisfaction  on  the 
part  of  workers  who  believe  that  they  are  being  paid  less  than 
other  workers  of  similar  ability  in  other  shops,  or  in  the  same 
shop."  The  employers'  chief  objection  was  that  "  any  mini- 
mum rate  ought  to  be  matched  by  a  definite  standard  of 
production  in  both  quality  and  quantity."  In  view  of  this 
objection,  the  Board  of  Arbitration  was  unwilling  at  the 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  828 

time  to  take  the  responsibility  of  fixing  a  minimum  by  de- 
cision. Such  basic  questions  of  wage  determination  are  best 
left  to  negotiation  and  agreement  between  the  parties,  in 
which  the  function  of  the  impartial  chairman  is  merely  that 
of  mediator.  The  Board  did,  however,  take  a  considerable 
step  in  the  direction  of  standardization  by  setting  average 
standards  for  the  market.  Its  decision**^  on  this  point  reads, 
in  part,  as  follows: 

"  Standards  of  Wages — Insofar  as  the  wages  paid  to  workers 
are  below  those  paid  to  other  workers  of  similar  ability  in  other 
shops,  or  in  the  shop,  there  is  bound  to  be  dissatisfaction.  A 
discontented  worker  is  not  usually  a  good  investment  for  a  firm. 
The  figures  submitted  by  various  houses  show  that  there  is  a 
considerable  difference  which  can  scarcely  be  credited  entirely 
to  the  respective  efficiency  of  the  different  workmen.  Standards 
will  naturally  be  expected  to  consider  to  some  extent  the  rela- 
tive rates  in  different  markets,  in  different  houses  in  Chicago, 
between  different  groups  of  workers,  and  finally  between  dif- 
ferent workers  of  the  same  sort.  The  Board  believes  that  the 
general  effort  to  do  justice  to  these  various  considerations  by 
leveling  up  the  lower-paid  houses,  which  has  already  been  car- 
ried out  to  a  considerable  degree  in  the  case  of  certain  piece- 
work sections,  may  properly  be  directed  to  secure  greater  uni- 
formity in  the  case  of  certain  at  least  of  these  week  workers.  It 
will  not  fix  a  flat  rate,  as  a  minimum  for  every  week  worker,  but 
it  will  fix  a  market  average  rate.  It  will  permit  the  firms  lati- 
tude in  their  present  practice  of  making  a  distinction  between 
the  more  and  the  less  efficient    *    *    *  ." 

In  line  with  the  same  general  policy  of  standardization 
of  wages  in  the  market  are  the  efforts  to  reduce  extreme 
disparities  in  earnings  above  the  norm.  As  part  of  the 
market  decision  on  wages^**  of  April,  1921,  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  provided  for  the  leveling  down  of  "  peaks  " 
or  unduly  high  rates  of  pay  in  certain  sections  of  the 
industry.  The  intention  was  to  offset  exceptional  advan- 
tages gained  by  workers  in  such  sections  at  a  time  of  labor 
stringency  chiefly  through  individual  arrangements  with 
their  employer  either  on  his  or  on  their  initiative.  A  num- 
ber of  employers  made  application  to  the  Board  under 
this  ruling  for  leveUng  of  peaks  ui  their  establishments,  but 


324     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

in  most  of  these  cases  their  request  was  denied.  The  gen- 
eral position  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  is  that  where  wage 
rates  have  been  duly  fixed  by  agreement  or  collective  bar- 
gaining they  are  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  impartial 
machinery  to  revoke.  Thus  in  one  case^*"  brought  to  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  under  the  decision  on  *'  peaks,"  the 
Chairman  ruled  "  that  he  will  not  consider  and  reduce  alleged 
peak  rates  predating  the  signing  of  the  agreement  in  1919." 
And  he  advanced  as  a  reason  for  his  refusal  that  "  except  in 
an  emergency  he  does  not  believe  that  it  is  his  function  by  de- 
cision to  undo  what  has  been  done  by  agreement  of  the 
parties  in  interest."  Consistently  with  this  position,  the 
Chairman  then  recommended  that  the  parties  negotiate 
among  themselves  with  regard  to  the  peaks  in  question  and 
apply  the  savings  effected  at  those  points  to  leveling  up  any 
underpaid  sections  still  remaining.  In  this  way  it  was  made 
easier  for  the  union  to  agree  to  a  reduction  of  peaks  while 
the  demand  for  such  reduction  on  the  employer's  part  was 
rendered  less  insistent. 

In  another  case  of  this  character"*'  the  request  of  a  manu- 
facturer for  the  reduction  of  certain  peaks  was  denied  by 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  on  the  ground  that  though  the 
workers  concerned  had  an  earning  capacity  considerably 
above  the  market  norm  for  these  operations,  still  by  compari- 
son with  piece  rates  paid  for  similar  work  by  other  houses 
in  the  market,  the  rates  in  question  were  only  slightly  if  at  all 
excessive. 

If  a  Chicago  manufacturer  desired  to  avail  himself  of  that 
paragraph  in  the  market  wage  decision  of  1921  which  bears 
upon  the  reduction  of  peaks,  the  burden  of  proof  rested 
upon  him.  He  had  to  prove,  first,  that  the  worker  or  section 
in  question  had  increased  their  piece  rate  since  the  market 
agreement  of  1919  went  into  effect;  secondly,  that  the  in- 
crease, though  brought  about  through  individual  bargaining, 
was  involuntary  on  the  firm's  part ;  and  thirdly,  that  the  pro- 
tested rate  was  excessive  as  compared  with  prevailing  rates 
for  such  work  in  the  market.  These  rules  were  laid  down  by 
the  Board  of  Arbitration"^   in  passing  on  the  merits  of 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES         825 

twenty-two  different  peak  rates,  whose  reduction  had  been 
requested  by  one  firm. 

The  reason  for  the  first  of  these  rules,  viz.,  that "  the  Board 
will  not  make  reductions  where  there  has  been  no  increase 
under  the  agreement  other  than  by  the  general  award  of 
December,  1919,"  is  to  be  found  in  the  principle  that  what 
collective  bargaining  has  given,  arbitration  may  not  take 
away.  To  attempt  to  do  so  might  discredit  the  method  of 
wage  arbitration  itself.  The  second  ruling,  that  the  Board 
"  will  not  make  reductions  where  the  firm  itself  gave  in- 
creases, without  collective  bargaining,  except  where  it  is 
shown  that  such  increases  resulted  from  pressure  exerted  by 
workers  or  shop  chairmen,"  is  based  on  a  policy  of  discourag- 
ing individual  bargaining.  "  The  Board  does  not  regard  it 
as  proper  policy  to  place  a  premium  on  anything  but  collec- 
tive bargaining.  Everyone  knows  that  under  the  agreement 
piece  rates  are  to  be  fixed  by  collective  bargaining  between 
the  firm's  representative  and  the  union's  authorized  repre- 
sentative. If  they  are  fixed  otherwise  it  is  mismanagement 
of  a  type  that  tends  strongly  to  undermine  the  agreement. 
The  Chairman  does  not  regard  it  as  good  policy  to  relieve  a 
firm  from  the  results  of  mismanagement,  especially  where  it 
has  been  very  evident."  The  third  rule,  that  the  Board 
"  will  not  reduce  any  rate  unless  it  is  substantially  in  excess 
of  a  fair  price,"  is  intended  to  discourage  a  multitude  of 
claims  that  might  entail  a  general  lowering  of  piece  rates  in 
the  market. 

All  three  of  the  foregoing  rules  are  found  illustrated  in  the 
decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in  reference  to  the 
twenty-two  alleged  peak  rates.  The  firm  had  raised  the 
question  of  prohibitive  labor  cost  in  its  coat  shop  and  in  the 
Board's  opinion  there  was  no  doubt  of  its  being  relatively 
high.  Nevertheless,  the  Board  refused  relief  on  this  score, 
holding  that  the  high  costs  were  "  due  very  largely  to  prices 
set  and  wages  paid  by  the  firm  before  the  agreement  was 
entered  into."  The  Board  then  declared  that  it  had  **  con- 
sistently followed  the  rule  not  to  reduce  wages  below  the 
level  obtaining  at  the  time  the  agreement  was  entered  into. 


326     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

It  will  not  deviate  from  that  rule  in  this  case  (1)  because  it 
doubts  its  authority  under  the  agreement  to  do  so  in  a  special 
case,  and  (2)  because  there  are  other  costs  in  which  there  is 
as  much  need  for  readjustment  as  here." 

The  rule  outlawing  rates  resulting  from  individual  bar- 
gaining finds  application  in  the  refusal  by  the  Board  to  re- 
duce the  rate  for  front  shaping,  which  had  been  increased 
from  9  to  10  cents  on  request  of  the  worker  and  without 
knowledge  of  the  deputy.  The  worker's  rate  was  found  to 
be  "  somewhat  high,  but  the  increase  was  granted  by  the  fore- 
man on  request  of  the  worker  and  without  threat  of  quitting, 
so  it  is  permitted  to  stand."  Where  pressure  is  brought  to 
bear  by  the  worker  to  secure  an  increase  in  his  rate,  the  in- 
crease is  illegal  and  may  be  taken  away  by  the  employer  or 
by  the  Board,  as  in  the  following  instance :  "  The  rate  for 
lining  making  on  sack  coats  is  20  cents.  *  *  *  The  basic 
rate  was  increased  3  cents  after  the  deputy  refused  to  take 
up  the  worker's  request  for  an  increase.  The  worker  *  *  * 
went  to  the  foreman  and  stated  that  he  would  quit  unless  he 
was  given  an  increase  of  8  cents.  This  the  foreman  gave. 
♦  *  *  Both  the  rate  of  earnings  and  price  are  high.  In- 
asmuch as  the  worker  did  not  accept  the  disposition  of  the 
deputy  whose  business  it  is  to  fix  piece  rates  in  this  house 
but  threatened  to  quit,  and  inasmuch  as  the  foreman  did  not 
take  the  matter  of  the  piece  rate  up  with  the  deputy  as  he  is 
expected  to  do,  the  Board  directs  that  half  of  the  increase 
given  shall  be  taken  off." 

In  illustration  of  the  rule  that  a  rate,  to  be  considered  a 
peak,  must  be  markedly  excessive,  there  is  the  case  of  the 
brusher  in  this  house.  His  rate  "  is  not  much  above  the 
average  for  houses  where  the  work  is  comparable.  It  is  per- 
mitted to  stand."  On  the  other  hand,  where  the  discrepancy 
is  marked,  the  leveling  process  does  operate :  "  The  rate  for 
seam  and  pocket  pressing  *  *  *  was  increased  from 
6.98  to  7.5,  ♦  *  *  and  then  to  8.5  cents.  As  usual,  the 
dealings  were  between  foreman  and  worker.  Whether  or  not 
there  was  a  threat  to  quit  is  in  dispute.    Rate  of  earnings, 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  82T 

comparative  prices  and  other  details  warrant  a  reduction  of 
y2  cent  from  the  present  price." 

The  policy  of  standardization  of  wages,  whether  in  the 
form  of  piece  rates  or  of  weekly  scales,  carries  with  it  as  a 
consequence  a  tendency  toward  stability.  Once  wage  stand- 
ards have  been  fixed  for  the  various  operations  in  the  in- 
dustry, and  are  imiformly  applied  to  all  employers  and 
workers  under  the  agreement,  it  becomes  immediately  to  the 
advantage  of  the  employers  as  a  group  and  of  the  union  to 
enforce  these  standards  against  any  individual — either  em- 
ployer or  worker — ^who  might  be  disposed  to  ignore  them. 
Furthermore,  because  of  this  common  vested  interest  set 
up  in  market  standards,  it  becomes  more  difficult  to  change 
them,  the  more  so  in  view  of  the  effect  of  any  change  upon 
the  competitive  position  of  the  market  as  a  whole  in  relation 
to  other  markets.  Today  we  see  standardization  of  wages 
gradually  extending  beyond  the  limits  of  the  local  market 
and  taking  on  national  scope.  Proposed  changes  in  any 
market  come,  therefore,  to  involve  elaborate  negotiations  and 
arbitration,  and  considerable  force  of  facts  and  argument  is 
required  to  realize  them.  Thus,  standards  tend  to  perpet- 
uate themselves  insofar  as  they  become  customary  and  as 
the  industry  becomes  adjusted  to  them. 

There  are,  however,  other  forces  making  in  the  opposite 
direction,  namely,  for  upsetting  existing  standards.  Chief 
among  these  is  the  fluctuation  of  business  and  employment 
— whether  of  the  seasonal  or  cyclical  type.  At  a  period  of 
brisk  trade,  when  workers  are  fully  employed  and  the  re- 
quirements of  the  industry  for  labor  exceed  the  available 
supply,  the  advantage  of  having  wage  standards  backed  up 
by  the  union  lies  primarily  on  the  side  of  the  employers. 
They  stand  immediately  to  gain  through  the  restriction  of 
competition  among  employers  for  workers  on  a  basis  of  in- 
dividual and  sectional  wage  increases  which  benefit  only  cer- 
tain privileged  groups  of  workers  as  against  the  rest.  The 
union's  concern  is  with  the  entire  membership  without  dis- 
crimination or  favoritism.  When  the  tide  turns  and  depres- 
sion in  the  trade  sets  in,  it  is  the  workers  who  derive  the 


828     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

primary  benefit  from  the  existence  of  wage  scales  and  stand- 
ards. The  maintenance  of  these  standards  by  a  powerful 
organization  prevents  that  undercutting  of  rates  when  jobs 
are  few  and  workers  are  many  that  used  to  demoralize  at 
every  slack  period  the  industry  and  the  people  in  it,  and  to 
destroy  what  there  was  of  organization  among  them. 

It  is  at  such  times,  also,  that  the  more  far-sighted  and 
responsible  among  the  employers  remember  the  beneficial 
workings  of  standards  upheld  by  the  union  against  its  indi- 
vidual members  at  the  peak  of  the  season,  and  consider  the 
value  of  similar  cooperation  by  the  union  in  the  future.  These 
employers  are,  accordingly,  disposed  to  cooperate  in  their 
turn  for  the  maintenance  of  union  standards.  It  is  because 
the  union,  as  the  permanent  organization  of  all  the  workers, 
is  concerned  not  merely  with  the  temporary  advantage  of 
some  of  its  members — such  as  individual  bargaining  at  the 
height  of  the  season  might  secure  them — but  rather  with  the 
permanent  advancement  of  all,  that  it  pursues  a  policy  of 
stabilization  of  wage  rates.  It  aims  to  minimize  the  seasonal 
ups  and  downs  and  the  dependence  of  wages  on  every  flurry 
of  trade,  and  proposes  to  assure  to  its  members  humane  and 
progressive  standards  of  income  as  a  fixed  charge  upon  the 
industry  with  which  they  are  so  vitally  identified. 

It  is  a  fact  that  the  union  through  its  enforcement  of  wage 
scales  and  otherwise  has  exercised  a  stabilizing  influence 
upon  the  industry  in  Chicago  at  a  time  when  a  short-sighted 
opportunism  might  have  dictated  the  opposite  course.  This 
fact  has  been  clearly  recognized  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
on  several  occasions  in  its  wage  decisions  as  entitling  the 
workers  to  special  consideration  at  its  hands.  In  his  market 
award^**  of  December  22,  1919,  Professor  Tufts  took  occa- 
sion to  declare  that  "  both  the  Firms  and  the  Union  members 
have  made  certain  financial  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of  a  larger 
end.  The  labor  market  is  being  stabilized ;  good  will  is  being 
cultivated,  responsibility  is  being  built  up.  This  cannot  be 
overlooked  by  the  Board."  And  in  April,  1921,  in  a  period 
of  severe  business  depression,  when  the  tendency  of  wages 


M.  C.  Fisch, 
Recording  Secretary 


Louis  Schultz, 
Vice  President 


Joseph  Goldman, 
President 


Charles  H.  Burr, 
Secretary-Treasurer 


A.  N.  Fisher, 
President,  1920-1921 


Alex  Levin, 
Chairman,   Board   of   Direc- 
tors 


Officers  Chicago  Joint  Board 


THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WAGES  829 

everywhere  was  downward.  Professor  Millis"^  summed  up 
the  union's  position  on  this  point  in  the  following  language : 

"  In  periods  of  rising  prices  and  of  business  activity,  the 
Union  has  exercised  its  powers  of  discipline  over  its  members 
and  has  restrained  them  from  accepting  substantial  increases  in 
wages  which  they  could  have  received  with  great  ease  and  which 
indeed  were  frequently  offered  by  the  employers  themselves.  The 
agreement  has  therefore  operated  in  such  periods  so  as  to  stabil- 
ize the  market  and  reduce  labor  turnover.  The  Union  feels  that 
in  return  for  the  stability  and  restraint  granted  in  periods  of 
business  prosperity,  the  members  of  the  Union  should  be  assured 
by  the  agreement  the  same  stabihty  and  protection  against 
instability  when  there  is  a  business  lull  and  when  the  market 
is  falling.  It  would  be  entirely  natural  for  its  members  to  feel 
that  an  agreement  which  made  for  stabilization  in  periods  of 
business  activity  when  they  were  asked  to  make  sacrifices,  and 
which  did  not  ask  the  same  sacrifices  of  the  manufacturers  in 
periods  of  business  depression,  was  unfair  to  them.  It  would 
be  unfortunate,  indeed,  if  the  workers  were  made  to  feel  by  a 
decision  that  the  Board  of  Arbitration  employed  double  stand- 
ards." 


CHAPTER   XIV 

THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE 

The  original  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  Agreement, 
adopted  at  the  close  of  the  1910  strike  and  signed  on  Jan- 
uary 14,  1911,  was  a  strictly  open-shop  agreement,  in  the 
sense  that  it  guaranteed  equal  treatment  to  all  workers 
employed  by  the  firm,  regardless  of  their  membership  in  the 
union.  The  second  of  the  four  provisions  embodied  in  that 
simple  document  stipulated  that  "  There  shall  be  no  dis- 
crimination of  any  kind  whatsoever  against  any  of  the  em- 
ployes of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  because  they  are  or 
are  not  members  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  of 
America."  The  agreement,  it  must  be  noted,  was  entered 
into  not  officially  with  the  union  but  only  with  the  employes 
of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  who  were,  at  the  time,  on 
strike.  The  union,  as  such,  was  not  recognized  as  a  party 
to  the  arrangement.  It  was  entitled  to  exist  as  a  voluntary 
association  of  workers  who  wished  to  belong  to  it,  but  it  had 
no  means  of  approaching  the  management  directly  as  a 
trade  union.  Nor  was  it,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  singled 
out  for  discrimination  or  suppression,  as  is  usually  the  case 
under  a  so-called  open-shop  plan. 

But  to  tolerate  the  existence  of  a  union  when  it  is  weak  and 
without  power  to  interfere  with  the  acts  and  regulations  of 
management  affecting  the  workers,  is  one  thing.  To  permit 
that  union  to  grow  strong  and  to  seek  to  extend  its  control 
over  the  workers  as  a  step  toward  exercising  control  over  the 
management,  is  quite  another.  The  theory  of  the  open  shop 
as  a  permanent  arrangement  presupposes  a  stable  balance  of 
power  as  between  the  employer  and  the  workers,  if  not  a 
safe  preponderance  of  power  on  the  side  of  the  former.  It 
breaks  down  in  practice  as  soon  as  one  or  the  other  party 
attempts  to  alter  the  balance.  It  breaks  down  when  the 
employer  feels  himself  sufficiently  powerful  to  endeavor  to 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    331 

rid  himself  of  whatever  restraints  the  activity  or  the  mere 
presence  of  the  organization  imposes  on  his  freedom.  It 
breaks  down,  likewise,  when  the  organization  gains  in  power 
relative  to  the  employer  and  uses  this  ascendancy  to  secure 
from  him  recognition  for  itself  and  concessions  for  its  mem- 
bers that  he  would  not  voluntarily  grant.  In  practice,  there- 
fore, the  tendency  of  an  open  shop  is  either  to  degenerate 
into  a  non-union  shop  or  to  develop  into  some  form  of  union 
shop  with  union  recognition  and  participation. 

This  statement  describes  with  substantial  accuracy  what 
happened  in  the  case  of  the  Harl,  Schaffner  and  Marx  ex- 
periment with  the  open  shop.  The  clothing  workers  had 
carried  to  a  successful  conclusion  a  long  and  bitter  strike. 
They  were  keenly  conscious  not  only  of  their  old  grievances 
— for  which  the  agreement  promised  redress — but  also  of 
their  new  power  through  solidarity  and  organization.  The 
company,  on  the  other  hand,  was  embarking  on  its  new  labor 
policy  in  the  hope  of  dealing  with  its  people  in  so  humane 
and  enlightened  a  manner  as  to  disarm  hostiUty  and  sus- 
picion, to  win  their  personal  loyalty,  and  thus  to  cut  the 
ground  from  under  the  growth  of  a  rival  loyalty  to  the  union. 
The  union  on  its  part  was  only  nominally  an  organ  of  the 
United  Garment  Workers.  The  people  regarded  it  as  in- 
timately their  own,  and  it  embodied  for  them  their  hopes  and 
aspirations  for  the  future.  The  leaders,  distinguished  above 
the  rest  by  their  greater  faith  and  vision,  lost  no  opportunity 
to  make  the  union  an  active  reality  in  peace  as  it  had  been 
in  war.  The  many  evils  of  the  old  autocratic  order  that  con- 
stituted the  grievances  of  the  workers  before  the  strike,  and 
the  other  numerous  issues  between  the  management  and  the 
workers  that  arose  as  problems  of  the  new  order  required 
some  form  of  joint  conference  for  their  presentation  and  ad- 
justment. It  was  necessary  that  the  workers  should  be  some- 
how represented  in  their  dealings  with  the  management  and 
particularly  with  the  newly  created  arbitration  board,  by 
those  who  could  speak  for  them  effectively  and  with  author- 
ity. This  is  where  the  union  found  its  function  and  its 
opportunity  to  serve  the  people.    With  the  inauguration  of 


332     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  Trade  Board  in  May  of  1912,  this  opportunity  was 
greatly  extended,  since  it  involved  the  recognition  and  func- 
tioning of  regular  deputies  and  other  officials  responsible  in 
all  but  name  to  the  organization. 

When  the  time  came  for  renewing  the  agreement,  early 
in  1913,  the  people  presented  among  many  other  demands 
one  for  the  virtual  establishment  of  a  union  shop.  They 
asked  for  this  because  they  wished  to  insure  themselves 
against  the  possibility  of  discrimination  on  account  of  union 
activity,  on  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other,  to  secure  a  larger 
measure  of  control  for  their  organization  which  by  that  time 
had  greatly  strengthened  its  hold  upon  the  adherence  of  the 
people.  The  company,  however,  was  not  willing  to  sur- 
render so  much  control  to  the  people  as  was  implied  in  the 
demand  for  a  100  per  cent,  union  shop,  fearing  the  use  a 
militant  union  might  make  of  such  suddenly  acquired  power. 
Out  of  this  deadlock  and  the  prospect  of  another  clash  of 
forces  there  came  the  suggestion  of  a  preferential  union  shop 
as  a  compromise  solution.  This  was  presented  to  both  sides 
by  Messrs.  Williams,  Hillman,  and  Howard,  and  adopted 
on  March  29, 1 91 3,  two  days  before  the  expiration  of  the  old 
agreement.  Tlie  first  clause  in  this  worldng  basis  of  a  pref- 
erential agreement  provided: 

**  That  the  firm  agrees  to  this  principle  of  preference,  namely, 
that  they  will  agree  to  prefer  union  men  in  the  hiring  of  new 
employes,  subject  to  reasonable  restrictions,  and  also  to  prefer 
union  men  in  dismissal  on  account  of  slack  work,  subject  to  a 
reasonable  preference  to  older  employes,  to  be  arranged  by  the 
Board  of  Arbitration,  it  being  understood  that  all  who  have 
worked  for  the  firm  six  months  shall  be  considered  old  em- 
ployes," 

The  application  of  the  principle  of  "  reasonable  prefer- 
ence "  was  left  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  to  work  out  in 
detail.  Mr.  Williams,  the  chairman,  in  accepting  this  new 
responsibility,  outlined  the  point  of  view  from  which  he 
would  approach  the  problem  of  protecting  the  people's  inter- 
ests under  the  preferential  arrangement,  in  these  words: 
"  The  chief  interest  of  the  employes  centers  around  the  ques- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    338 

tion  of  an  increased  efficiency  of  organization,  which  requires 
a  recognition  of  the  need  for  such  a  substantial  degree  of 
preference  as  will  tend  to  improve  that  efficiency." 

The  preferential  system  inaugurated  by  the  agreement  of 
1913,  and  elaborated  in  subsequent  agreements,  has  resulted 
in  the  practically  complete  unionization  of  the  industry,  first 
in  the  factories  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  and  later 
throughout  the  market.  The  steps  by  which  this  result  was 
achieved  can  only  be  suggested  in  this  place.  The  agree- 
ment of  1913  definitely  recognized  the  union.  It  was  con- 
cluded between  the  Joint  Board  of  the  Garment  Workers  on 
one  side  and  the  Company  on  the  other.  It  provided  for 
union  preference  in  hiring  and  discharge.  The  manner  in 
which  such  preference  was  to  be  applied  was  formulated  in 
a  series  of  decisions  promulgated  by  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion in  August  of  1913,  and  these  became  part  and  parcel  of 
the  agreement.  Thus  was  laid  down,  once  for  all,  the  fxmda- 
mental  law  of  the  industry  on  the  momentous  question  of — 

PREFERENCE   IN   HIRING 

"  When  in  need  of  additional  workers  the  company  shall  give 
the  first  opportunity  of  employment  to  union  members  if  they 
can  be  obtained ;  if  the  union  cannot  furnish  them  the  company 
may  procure  the  needed  help  from  any  other  source. 

"  To  give  effect  to  this  preference  with  as  little  friction  or 
inconvenience  as  possible  the  following  provisions  are  made : 

"  The  company  shall  furnish  the  union  a  list  of  the  number 
and  kind  of  workers  needed,  specifying  the  date  on  which  the 
applicants  must  report,  which  list  shall  be  furnished  as  far  in 
advance  as  possible. 

"  The  union  shall  keep  on  file  with  the  company  a  list  of  such 
union  applicants  for  work  as  it  may  wish  to  offer,  which  Hst 
shall  be  corrected  from  time  to  time  and  kept  up  to  date. 

"  The  company  shall  keep  an  employment  record  which  shall 
show  the  date  of  engagement  of  all  new  workers  and  the  kind 
of  work  they  are  employed  for  and  the  place  of  work  in  which 
they  are  assigned. 

"  If,  after  advance  notice  has  been  given,  the  union  fails  to 
have  on  its  list  of  applicants  the  number  and  kind  of  workers 
needed  by  the  company  on  the  specified  date,  or  if  the  needed 
applicants  fail  to  report  in  person  on  that  date,  then  the  com- 


884     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

pany  may  assume  that  union  workers  are  not  available  and  may 
procure  help  elsewhere. 

**  In  case  of  an  emergency,  when  advance  notice  cannot  be 
given,  the  company  may  communicate  orally  or  by  telephone 
with  the  representatives  of  the  union,  and  in  case  the  union 
cannot  furnish  help,  the  company  may  proceed  to  hire  elsewhere. 

"  If  an  applicant  has  been  recently  discharged  for  cause,  or 
if  under  the  influence  of  liquor,  or  obviously  incompetent,  the 
company  shall  not  be  required  to  employ  him.  Otherwise,  the 
candidates  offered  by  the  union  shall  have  first  opportunity  of 
employment." 

In  accordance  with  this  decision,^ '^  the  union  was  pre- 
sented with  an  opportunity  for  placing  its  own  members  in 
jobs  whenever  vacancies  had  to  be  filled  by  the  company. 
One  important  consequence  of  this  preferred  position  of  the 
union  in  the  labor  market  was  that  it  attracted  to  itself  a 
great  many  new  members  who  saw  a  very  definite  material 
advantage  for  themselves  where  previously  they  had  only 
seen  a  sentimental  reason  for  joining  the  union.  A  further 
consequence  was  that  with  a  rapidly  expanding  membership 
the  union  soon  acquired  sufficient  control  over  the  labor  sup- 
ply in  the  market  to  greatly  augment  its  bargaining  power 
with  the  employer.  Looking  backward  over  the  nine  years 
during  which  the  preferential  shop  has  been  in  operation, 
its  total  effect  has  been  practically  the  same  as  would  have 
followed  from  a  closed  union  shop,  except  that  it  has  per- 
mitted of  greater  elasticity  in  the  labor  supply  in  response 
to  the  changing  needs  of  a  growing  industry. 

How  this  elasticity  is  attained  without  injury  to  the  union's 
right  to  preferential  treatment  of  its  members  out  of  work, 
is  indicated  in  the  following  case."^  The  union  requested  the 
Trade  Board  to  direct  the  company  to  discharge  two  non- 
union cutters,  who  had  been  taken  on  when  the  cutting  force 
was  to  be  increased.  The  company  replied  that  the  labor 
manager  had  notified  the  union  deputy  that  the  company 
needed  fifty  more  cutters;  that  later  a  written  requisition 
was  sent  to  the  union  office;  and  that  the  union  had  sent  only 
one  cutter  in  response  to  this  requisition.  The  Trade  Board 
ruled  that  technically  the  objection  of  the  union  as  to  the 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    835 

filling  of  the  places  of  cutters  before  the  union  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  supply  men  to  the  company  was  sound.  *'  The 
fact,  however,  that  it  wasi  practically  impossible  for  the  union 
to  supply  the  cutters  required  must  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. If  it  should  be  that  the  union  did  supply  the  cutters 
by  the  next  day  or  two,  the  complaint  might  have  some  sub- 
stantial support.  But  it  is  known  that  cutters  are  not  avail- 
able and  will  not  be  available.  Under  the  circumstances,  the 
Trade  Board  can  find  no  ground  for  directing  the  withdrawal 
of  these  men.  When  the  union  is  unable  to  supply  the  neces- 
sary cutters,  the  company  is  free  to  help  itself  as  it  can  by 
using  non-union  men." 

The  employer  is  required  to  give  the  union  a  reasonable 
opportunity  to  fill  his  requisition  for  help  before  he  may 
proceed  to  engage  workers  through  other  sources.  The  later 
Chicago  agreements,  including  those  with  Hart,  Schaffner 
and  Marx  as  well  as  with  the  associations,  provide  on  this 
point  in  substantially  similar  language,  as  follows : 

*'  It  is  agreed  that  the  principle  of  the  preferential  shop  shall 
prevail,  to  be  applied  in  the  following  manner: 

"  Preference  shall  be  applied  in  hiring  and  discharge.  When- 
ever the  employer  needs  additional  workers,  he  shall  first  make 
application  to  the  union,  specifying  the  number  and  kind  of 
workers  needed.  The  union  shall  be  given  a  reasonable  time 
to  supply  the  specified  help,  and  if  it  is  unable,  or  for  any  rea- 
son fails  to  furnish  the  required  people,  the  employer  shall  be  at 
liberty  to  secure  them  in  the  open  market  as  best  he  can." 

Exactly  what  is  a  "  reasonable  time  "  for  the  purpose  in 
question  is  not  defined  in  the  agreement.  But  usage  in 
Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  allows  three  days,  while  for  the 
rest  of  the  market  forty-eight  hours  is  the  standard.  In 
one  instance^  ^*  the  union  complained  that  the  company  had 
violated  the  agreement  in  that  it  hired  people  before  send- 
ing in  a  requisition,  or  before  the  requisition  had  expired. 
The  company  in  reply  claimed  that  they  had  always  filled 
vacancies  before  requisition  was  issued,  or  before  it  expired. 
If  the  union  sent  in  help  these  newly  hired  workers  were  let 
out.    The  Trade  Board  ruled  that  the  agreement  was  to  be 


336     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

observed.  Workers  were  not  to  be  hired  except  after  requi- 
sition had  been  turned  into  the  union,  and  three  days'  time 
was  to  be  allowed  for  filling  the  requirements.  "  If  an 
emergency  arises,  the  union  should  not  be  insistent  on  its 
rights  under  the;  agreement  but  give  sufficient  cooperation  to 
avoid  handicapping  production." 

The  obligation  of  the  employer  under  the  preferential 
clause  of  the  agreement  to  give  the  union  reasonable  time  to 
fill  his  requisition,  holds  good,  however  the  vacancy  was 
caused.  Thus,  if  a  worker  is  sent  by  the  union  in  response 
to  a  requisition  and  he  is  rejected  after  trial  or  quits  of  his 
own  volition,  the  union  is  entitled  to  another  interval  of  time 
in  which  to  replace  him.  "  In  either  case  the  right  to  hire 
in  the  open  market  cannot  foUoTy  immediately  without  de- 
feating in  effect  the  preferential  clause  of  the  agreement." 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  expected  that  the  union  will  give 
prompt  attention  to  requisitions  in  the  interest  of  efficient 
production.  Not  only  in  an  emergency  is  this  cooperation 
expected,  but  generally  whenever  no  sacrifice  of  essential 
interests  is  involved.  A  case  illustrating  both  the  legal  obli- 
gation on  the  employer's  side  and  the  moral  responsibility 
on  the  part  of  the  union  is  the  following  :"** 

The  firm  in  this  case  had  filed  requisition  for  a  canvas 
presser  on  July  8.  The  union  did  not  fill  the  requisition. 
On  July  13  a  brother  of  the  shop  chairman  made  application 
for  the  place  and  the  employment  manager  took  him  to  the 
union  for  an  O.  K.  The  union  refused  to  give  an  O.  K., 
claiming  that  other  men  were  available.  The  next  day  the 
union  sent  a  man  with  an  O.  K.  He  quit  at  the  end  of  the 
day,  whereupon  the  firm  re-opened  its  requisition.  The 
union  did  not  send  another  man  up  to  12.30  p.  m.  of  the 
next  day  and  the  firm  hired  the  brother  of  the  shop  chair- 
man. This  worker  also  quit  at  the  end  of  the  day,  the  firm 
claiming  that  he  was  forced  to  quit  by  the  union.  After 
hearing  both  sides,  the  impartial  chairman  declared  that  the 
firm  was  technically  bound  by  the  agreement  not  only  to  re- 
open its  requisition  after  the  first  man  quit,  but  again  to 
wait  forty-eight  hours  for  another  applicant  to  be  sent  by 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    837 

the  union.  "  At  the  same  time,"  the  chairman  held,  "  the 
union  should  make  every  effort  to  replace  those  sent  on 
requisitions  who  quit  or  who  do  not  meet  the  requirements 
of  the  position,  without  standing  on  technical  rights  *  *  *. 
To  stand  on  technical  rights  is  to  subject  the  preferential 
clause  of  the  agreement  to  undue  strain  and  defeat  its  main 
purpose." 

In  the  foregoing  case  the  firm  waited  beyond  what  has 
come  to  be  accepted  as  "  reasonable  "  time,  in  order  to  give 
the  union  ample  opportunity  to  fill  the  requisition.  The 
question  as  to  what  constitutes  reasonable  time,  however, 
cannot  be  settled  without  regard  to  circumstances.  It  must 
depend  within  limits  on  the  ability  of  the  employer  to  fore- 
see a  need  for  help  and  to  wait  for  having  it  supplied.  Al- 
though for  practical  purposes  an  interval  of  two  or  three 
working  days  has  been  adopted  as  the  customary  minimum 
allowance  for  the  union  to  find  the  needed  workers,  if  an 
employer  should  find  himself  under  exceptional  pressure 
to  fill  vacancies  or  add  new  workers  to  his  force,  he  has  a 
right  to  call  on  the  union  to  supply  his  need  in  less  than  the 
allotted  time.  In  the  event  of  the  union's  inability  to  do  so, 
he  may  supplement  its  efforts  on  his  own  account.  This 
right  is  based  on  the  clause  in  the  agreement,  already  quoted, 
which  reads :  "  In  case  of  an  emergency,  when  advance 
notice  cannot  be  given,  the  company  may  communicate  orally 
or  by  telephone  with  the  representatives  of  the  union,  and 
in  case  the  union  cannot  furnish  help,  the  company  may 
proceed  to  hire  elsewhere." 

The  distinction  between  ordinary  situations  and  emergen- 
cies in  the  hiring  of  help  that  is  implied  in  the  above  cited 
provision,  was  invoked  by  the  Trade  Board  in  a  concrete 
case,"'  where  the  question  of  what  is  "  reasonable  time  " 
was  the  issue.  In  the  words  of  the  decision,  "  *  reasonable  * 
time  has  been  held  to  be  forty-eight  hours.  The  Board  ap- 
preciates that  emergencies  may  arise  in  which  the  firm  has 
no  advance  knowledge  of  a  vacancy.  The  union  is  expected 
to  cooperate  in  meeting  such  an  emergency  and  to  use  every 
effort  to  see  that  requisitions  are  filled  promptly."    In  return 


338     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

for  such  cooperation  on  the  part  of  the  union,  the  employer 
may  be  expected  not  to  construe  too  technically  the  term 
"  reasonable  time,"  when  there  is  no  emergency  and  the  union 
needs  more  than  the  minimum  period  for  filling  a  requi- 
sition. 

When  an  employer  is  in  need  of  help  he  must  apply  for  it 
to  the  employment  office  of  the  union,  specifying,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  agreement  "  the  number  and  kind  of  workers 
needed."  The  union  is  expected  to  meet  the  employer's  re- 
quirements as  nearly  and  as  promptly  as  possible.  But  if 
the  union  has  reason  to  believe  that  there  is  anything  im- 
proper in  the  requisition,  it  may  decline  to  fill  it  with  respect 
to  the  disputed  specification,  pending  appeal  to  the  Trade 
Board.  In  one  instance  of  this  sort^'*^  the  firm  complained  to 
the  Trade  Board  that  the  union  had  failed  to  honor  a  requisi- 
tion for  a  female  operator  and  had  sent  a  male  worker  in- 
stead. The  Trade  Board  ruled  that  the  man  was  to  be  hired 
and  given  a  fair  trial.  The  union  cannot  be  expected  to  be  a 
party  to  sex  discrimination,  especially  when  this  may  lead  to 
a  lowering  of  standards.  In  another  case^"^^  where  the  union 
refused  to  honor  a  requisition  calling  for  female  operators, 
the  Trade  Board  ruled  as  follows:  "What  is  and  what  is 
not  a  proper  requisition  depends  upon  circumstances.  If 
women  workers  are  wanted  at  low  wages  to  fill  places  hereto- 
fore filled  by  men  at  higher  wages,  the  requisition  becomes 
improper.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  workers  in  the  section 
are  women  and  a  man  would  be  a  disturbing  element,  a 
requisition  for  a  woman  worker  with  explanation  why  only  a 
woman  worker  is  wanted  should  be  accepted  and  make  no 
difficulty." 

When  no  interests  of  the  workers  or  of  the  union  are  in- 
fringed, the  union  must  either  furnish  the  help  called  for  by 
the  requisition  or  leave  the  employer  free  to  find  the  needed 
workers  elsewhere.  On  one  occasion^  "^^  the  union  petitioned 
against  the  employment  of  girls  in  the  jack  section  of  the 
trimming  department.  The  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration, ruling  on  the  principle  at  issue,  said:  "  The  chair- 
man holds  that  '  jack  boys '  is  a  colloquial  and  familiar  ex- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    889 

pression,  not  necessarily  a  sex  definition,  and  does  not  imply 
a  prohibition  of  female  labor.  If  and  when  girls  are  em- 
ployed in  the  jack  section,  they  shall  receive  the  same  rate 
of  pay  as  boys  when  doing  the  same  work." 

A  requisition  may  be  improper  because  its  indirect  effect 
is  to  lower  the  standard  of  wages  in  the  shop.  A  certain  firm 
was  following  the  practice  of  filhng  vacancies  in  the  tailor 
shop  with  learners.  It  had  been  requisitioning  the  union 
from  time  to  time  for  learners  at  the  minimum  wage.  The 
position  of  the  union  in  complaining  to  the  Trade  Board^^° 
of  this  practice  was  that  it  does  not  have  learners  but  does 
have  experienced  workers  and  that  the  practice  tended  to 
reduce  the  average  wages  for  the  section.  The  Board  held 
that  a  requisition  for  learners  was  not  a  proper  requisition. 
The  principle  involved  was,  according  to  the  Board, 
"  whether  the  firm  may  employ  new  workers  at  wages  that 
will  reduce  the  average  for  the  section.  It  has  been  held  in 
several  previous  cases  that  this  may  not  be  done.  *  *  * 
The  average  for  the  section  must  be  maintained,  otherwise 
the  firm  might  break  down  standards  by  employing  new 
workers  at  lower  wages." 

In  the  hiring  of  new  workers  the  agreement  is  explicit  in 
requiring  the  employer  to  give  preference  to  union  members. 
As  long  as  the  union  is  able  to  supply  workers  not  obviously 
disqualified,  the  employer  must  hire  them  and  may  not  obtain 
help  otherwise.  This  principle  was  upheld  in  a  Trade  Board 
decision^® ^  and  confirmed  on  appeal  by  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion. The  imion  in  that  case  had  complained  of  the  rejection 
by  the  company  of  trimmers  supplied  by  the  union  on  requisi- 
tion. The  Trade  Board  ruled  that  the  language  of  the  agree- 
ment required  the  company  to  hire  such  union  men  as  might 
be  sent  to  them  on  requisition;  that  the  company  is  not  at 
liberty  to  depart  from  hiring  union  men  until  the  supply  of 
union  men  is  exhausted,  and  the  company  was  found  in  viola- 
tion of  the  agreement.  The  company  appealed  the  case,  and 
the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  stated :  "  This  case 
relates  to  the  practice  of  preference  in  the  selection  of  union 
men  at  time  of  hiring.    The  company  claims  it  has  unlimited 


840     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

right  of  selection  and  rejection.  The  union  claims  the  com- 
pany must  accept  any  union  man  sent  until  by  trial  he  proves 
himself  unfit  for  the  job.  The  chairman  finds  this  question 
defined  in  the  old  agreement  about  as  clearly  as  he  feels  able 
to  state  it  *  *  *."  The  provision  referred  to  is  the  final 
paragraph  under  the  head  of  "  Preference  in  Hiring," 
quoted  above,  and  reading  as  follows : 

"  If  an  applicant  has  been  recently  discharged  for  cause,  or 
if  under  the  influence  of  liquor,  or  obviously  incompetent,  the 
company  shall  not  be  required  to  employ  him.  Otherwise  the 
candidates  offered  by  the  union  shall  have  first  opportunity  of 
employment." 

In  another  case^*^  the  union  complained  that  a  pocket 
maker  whom  it  had  sent  to  the  company  was  refused  employ- 
ment. The  evidence  showed  that  the  employment  manager 
refused  to  hire  him  on  the  ground  that  his  frequent  quitting 
on  previous  occasions  had  made  him  an  undesirable  employe. 
The  Trade  Board  ruled  that  *'  under  the  agreement  the  com- 
pany is  required  to  hire  the  worker  sent  by  the  union  unless 
he  has  been  recently  discharged,  is  obviously  incompetent,  or 
is  intoxicated  at  the  time  of  application.  None  of  these  con- 
ditions are  foimd  in  this  case." 

The  employer  is  required  to  hire  workers  sent  by  the  union 
on  requisition  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  sent.  This  in- 
sures, insofar  as  the  union's  employment  bureau  is  efficiently 
conducted,  that  those  members  who  have  been  longest  unem- 
ployed shall  be  the  first  to  be  placed  in  jobs.  In  one  case^®^ 
the  union  complained  that  G,  a  seam  and  pocket  presser,  had 
not  been  given  employment.  G  had  formerly  been  employed 
in  this  factory  and  had  been  laid  off  at  his  own  request  for 
three  months.  Before  the  expiration  of  this  period,  however, 
he  had  heard  of  a  vacancy  in  his  section  and  applied  to  the 
union  for  the  place  but  was  rejected  by  the  firm  because  his 
lay-off  permit  had  not  expired.  The  Trade  Board,  on  hear- 
ing the  evidence,  directed  that  he  be  employed.  He  was 
entitled  to  the  position,  "  because  a  seam  and  pocket  presser 
had  been  requisitioned  and  he,  as  a  union  man,  had  been  sent 
in  response  to  the  requisition.    If  the  company  was  not  in 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    841 

need  of  a  seam  and  pocket  presser  the  agreement  could  not 
require  the  company  to  give  G  work  until  the  permit  expired. 
But  when  the  company  needs  a  presser  and  G  needs  the  work 
it  would  seem  that  imder  the  general  provisions  regarding 
preference  in  hiring  G  could  report  for  work  and  would  be 
entitled  to  work.  If  his  work  is  not  satisfactory,  the  com- 
pany has  the  usual  means  for  discipline  available." 

The  only  valid  grounds  for  refusing  to  hire  a  worker  sent 
by  the  union  on  requisition  of  the  employer  are  those  laid 
down  in  Mr.  Williams'  decision  on  the  subject^"^  of  August, 
1913.  The  passage  reads  as  follows:  "  If  an  applicant  has 
been  recently  discharged  for  cause,  or  if  under  the  influence 
of  liquor,  or  obviously  incompetent,  the  company  shall  not 
be  required  to  employ  him."  Relying  on  this  section,  the 
union  in  one  case^^*  complained  to  the  Trade  Board  that  the 
company  had  refused  to  hire  B,  an  off -presser,  sent  in  re- 
sponse to  a  requisition.  The  company's  objection  to  hiring 
B  was  that  he  had  been  found  undesirable  when  formerly 
employed  there.  At  that  time  B  had  been  suspended  by  the 
company  but  was  ordered  reinstated  by  the  Trade  Board. 
In  view  of  this  fact,  the  Trade  Board  found  that  the  com- 
pany had  not  followed  the  provisions  of  the  agreement,  and 
directed  the  employment  of  B  with  one  day's  back  pay. 

In  the  foregoing  case  the  worker's  record  was  cleared  by 
the  action  of  the  Trade  Board  in  reinstating  him.  Had  his 
suspension  been  confirmed  or  had  he  resigned  his  position  in 
order  to  avoid  trial,  he  would  have  forfeited  his  rights  as  a 
candidate  for  re-employment  later.  This,  at  least,  is  the  con- 
struction placed  upon  the  provision  in  the  agreement  by  an 
arbitration  decision  of  Professor  Millis.^^"^  The  occasion  for 
that  decision  was  presented  by  the  case  of  a  woman  worker 
who  applied  for  a  position  as  finisher  in  a  factory  where  she 
had  been  previously  employed  and  had  served  as  shop  chair- 
lady.  In  connection  with  charges  of  intimidation  growing 
out  of  a  Trade  Board  case  at  that  time  she  resigned  her 
chairmanship  and  took  a  layoff.  When  she  returned  in  re- 
sponse to  a  requisition  of  the  firm,  she  was  refused  employ- 
ment on  the  gi-ound  that  she  had  been  a  "  trouble  maker  ". 


342     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

The  union  then  charged  the  firm  with  violating  the  agree- 
ment, citing  the  clause  of  disquahfications  in  support  of  its 
claim.  The  Trade  Board,  on  hearing  the  complaint,  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  the  resignation  of  the  girl  on  the 
previous  occasion  indicated  that  she  had  not  wished  to  meet 
the  prospective  charge  of  intimidating  a  witness.  Rather 
than  do  so,  she  had  resigned  her  office  and  taken  a  layoff. 
'*  The  opposition  of  the  company  to  such  evasion  can  be 
easily  understood  and  their  refusal  to  rehire  the  girl  war- 
ranted by  the  record  and  circumstances  attending  her  resig- 
nation. Moreover,  such  refusal  to  hire  works  no  hardship. 
The  demand  for  finishers  always  exceeds  the  supply."  When 
thd  case  came  up  for  review  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  the 
question  as  it  presented  itself  was  "  whether  when  one  resigns 
under  fire,  he  or  she  may  properly  be  refused  re-employment 
when  sent  on  requisition."  And  the  chairman  ruled  in  the 
affirmative : 

"  It  is  obvious  that  if  a  worker  who  has  *  quit  under  fire  * 
must  be  accepted  by  the  company  it  would  defeat  the  purpose 
the  Board  had  in  view  when  it  made  its  earlier  ruling  (August, 
1913),  unless  after  re-employment  suspension  can  be  imposed 
for  something  done  previous  to  such  re-employment.  It  is 
obvious,  also,  that  if  re-employment  can  be  immediately  fol- 
lowed by  such  suspension,  nothing  is  accomplished.  The  chair- 
man is  of  the  opinion  that  where  a  worker  *  quits  under  fire,' 
the  company  may  properly  refuse  to  re-employ  him  or  her,  but 
that  this  refusal  should  be  subject  to  review  by  the  Trade  Board. 
This  would  protect  the  worker,  and  disposes  of  the  matter  as  it 
would  be  were  the  worker  discharged  and  if  questioned,  the  dis- 
charge reviewed  by  the  Trade  Board." 

The  concluding  clauses  of  the  decision  just  quoted  assure 
the  candidate  for  re-employment  against  unfair  discrimina- 
tion, even  where  the  circumstances  of  his  previous  quitting 
have  clouded  his  record.  The  same  protection  of  appeal  to 
the  Trade  Board  is  extended  to  the  applicant  for  employ- 
ment with  a  firm  for  whom  he  has  not  previously  worked  at 
all.  If  sent  on  requisition  and  refused  employment  by  the 
firm,  he  has  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  impartial  machinery  on 
the  merits  of  his  case.  Though  he  has  not  been  hired  and  is, 
therefore,  technically  not  an  employe  of  the  firm,  he  may 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    843 

through  the  union  bring  complaint  against  the  firm  and,  if 
justified,  secure  employment.  To  illustrate:  The  union 
charged  before  the  Trade  Board"®  that  the  company  had 
refused  to  hire  one  A,  a  cutter,  when  presented  for  employ- 
ment in  response  to  a  requisition  for  help.  The  company 
refused  to  submit  evidence  to  the  Trade  Board  when  the 
issue  was  brought  to  trial,  on  the  ground  that  the  cutter  was 
not  an  employe  of  the  company  and  therefore  not  entitled 
to  the  use  of  the  trial  boards.  The  alleged  ground  on  which 
the  man  had  been  refused  employment  was  that  of  incom- 
petence. The  Trade  Board  thereupon  ordered  the  cutter  to 
be  employed  by  the  company.  The  company  appealed  to  the 
Board  of  Arbitration,  and  the  full  Board  decided  that  the 
company  was  in  error  in  refusing  to  submit  its  evidence  and 
proceed  with  the  trial.  The  three  arbitrators  agreed  unani- 
mously in  this  decision  and  directed  that  the  case  be  remanded 
to  the  Trade  Board  to  be  tried  on  its  merits  under  the  evi- 
dence. 

Before  the  union  had  come  to  be  recognized  in  the  Chicago 
clothing  industry,  and  the  preferential  union  shop  had  be- 
come an  established  institution,  the  employers  enjoyed  prac- 
tically unlimited  freedom  in  hiring  and  selecting  new  help. 
This  freedom,  especially  when  exercised  by  them  collectively 
through  a  central  employment  bureau  controlled  by  the 
manufacturers'  association,  gave  to  the  employers  a  fearful 
power  over  their  workers.  It  enabled  them  by  means  of  a 
system  of  records  to  control  the  opportunities  for  employ- 
ment in  the  market.  It  made  possible  a  blacklisting  system 
which  for  a  long  time  effectively  undermined  every  effort  at 
unionization  of  the  workers.  Through  the  adoption  of  the 
preferential  principle  in  hiring,  the  control  over  the  supply 
and  allocation  of  labor  in  the  industry  has  in  large  part 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  union.  It  is  the  union's  employ- 
ment bureau  that  has  first  call  on  the  providing  of  workers 
to  the  employer  and  that  makes  the  selection  of  candidates 
for  him.  Anti-union  discrimination  is  no  longer  possible. 
Nor  is  it  any  longer  permissible  for  employers  to  agree 
among  themselves  to  deny  employment  to  any  worker  on 


344     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

grounds  other  than  those  specifically  mentioned  in  the  agree- 
ment. The  union  must  be  a  party  to  any  regulation  or  legis- 
lation bearing  upon  its  members'  right  to  employment.  And 
whenever  this  right  is  in  dispute,  the  union  becomes  its  de- 
fender on  the  basis  of  the  agreement. 

A  case^'^  in  which  the  above  principle  finds  illuminating 
application  is  that  of  certain  finishers  whom  the  union  sent 
to  X  and  Company,  in  response  to  requisition,  and  who  were 
not  given  employment  while  non-union  girls  were  hired. 
The  company  stated  in  justification  of  this  action  that  the 
Market  Committee  of  Chicago  had  made  a  rule  that  people 
leaving  without  consent  the  emplojnnent  of  one  company 
would  not  be  hired  by  another,  in  order  to  preserve  intact  the 
manufacturing  organization  of  each  employer.  Because  of 
some  temporary  slackness  in  the  shops  of  the  Y  Company, 
some  finishers  had  left  there  and  had  been  sent  by  the  union 
to  X  and  Company  for  employment.  The  company,  con- 
forming to  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  Market  Committee,  had 
refused  to  hire  the  girls.  The  union  replied  by  protesting 
this  rule  by  the  Market  Committee  and  contended  that  it 
could  have  no  force  or  effect  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the 
agreement  dealing  with  the  rule  of  preference  in  hiring 
workers.  The  union  pointed  out  that  the  language  of  the 
agreement  is  definite:  "Whenever  the  employer  needs 
additional  workers,  he  shall  first  make  application  to  the 
union,  etc."  The  imion  contended  that  the  company  in  ac- 
cepting the  rule  of  the  Market  Committee  and  in  acting  in 
conformity  with  it  had  actually  abrogated  the  preference 
provisions  of  the  agreement  regarding  hiring ;  and  that  there- 
fore neither  the  union  nor  the  trial  boards  could  recognize  the 
validity  of  the  rule  of  the  Market  Conmiittee,  as  all  these 
parties — the  union,  the  company,  and  the  trial  boards — were 
bound  by  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  and  these  terms  could 
not  be  modified  or  set  aside  by  any  arrangement  with  other 
manufacturers  to  which  the  union  was  not  a  party.  While 
agreeing  that  a  stabilizing  of  the  market  was  desirable  and 
necessary  for  the  best  interests  of  the  industry,  the  union 
would  not  admit  the  validity  of  the  Market  Committee  rule 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    345 

in  the  face  of  the  specific  provisions  of  the  agreement.  The 
Trade  Board  regarded  the  position  of  the  union  as  clearly 
supported  by  the  language  of  the  agreement,  and  directed 
that  the  girls  sent  by  the  union  be  given  employment. 

A  similar  issue^'®  arose  between  the  union  and  another 
firm  in  the  market,  to  whom  an  operator  had  been  sent  on 
requisition.  According  to  the  union's  complaint,  the  firm 
had  inquired  of  the  worker  where  she  had  been  employed 
previously,  and  then  refused  for  nearly  two  and  a  half  days 
to  employ  her.  The  firm  stated  at  the  hearing  that  the  shops 
manufacturing  children's  suits  had  been  inconvenienced 
greatly  by  workers  leaving  without  notice  and  had  agreed 
that  no  one  would  be  employed  who  had  left  another  shop 
without  notice.  This  worker  had  been  employed  as  soon  as 
it  could  be  ascertained  that  she  had  not  quit  her  last  place  of 
employment  without  notice.  Chairman  Squires  of  the  Trade 
Board  in  deciding  this  case  in  favor  of  the  worker  and  against 
the  Market  Committee  rule,  gave  the  following  carefully 
considered  opinion  on  the  point  at  issue : 

"  The  Trade  Board  appreciates  the  inconvenience  and  loss 
resulting  from  separations  without  notice  and  believes  that  it 
should  be  possible  by  closer  cooperation  between  the  firm  and 
the  union  to  protect  the  interests  of  both  without  resorting  to 
an  agreement  and  practice  of  the  nature  indicated.  The  union 
does  not  stand  for  quitting  without  notice,  though  it  seems  not 
to  have  been  possible  thus  far  to  find  a  way  to  insure  that  a 
worker  thus  quitting  will  not  be  given  work  elsewhere.  At  the 
same  time  the  Board  does  not  approve  the  method  used  by  the 
firm.  Carried  to  its  logical  conclusion  it  is  the  equivalent  of  a 
leaving  certificate  plan  and  might  easily  develop  into  something 
even  more  objectionable.  In  a  previous  decision  the  Trade 
Board  stated  that  if  the  practice  of  quitting  without  notice 
became  an  abuse  it  would  be  a  proper  subject  for  conference 
or  for  action  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration. 

"  In  this  case  the  worker  had  given  notice  at  her  last  place  of 
employment  and  been  released.  Irrespective  of  the  propriety  of 
the  agreement  between  the  firms  it  should  have  been  a  matter 
of  minutes  rather  than  days  to  ascertain  the  fact  that  due 
notice  had  been  given.  It  should  have  been  unnecessary  for 
the  union  to  bring  complaint  to  the  firm.  The  Trade  Board 
directs  that  the  worker  be  paid  for  time  lost." 


346     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

When  an  employer  hires  a  worker  sent  on  requisition,  he 
is  obliged  to  pay  him  the  scale  of  wages  established  for  the 
operation  speciiSed  in  the  requisition.  If  he  subsequently 
decides  to  employ  the  worker  at  a  lower-paid  operation,  he 
is  not  free  to  reduce  the  wage  correspondingly.  In  one 
case^^®  of  complaint  by  the  union  that  a  worker  had  been 
hired  below  the  scale,  it  developed  that  the  worker  had  been 
hired  as  a  tailor  on  requisition  and  then  put  at  pulHng  threads 
and  paid  accordingly.  In  his  decision  the  impartial  chair- 
man stated:  "  The  Trade  Board  would  condemn  in  no  un- 
certain terms  this  method  of  hiring.  Wage  arrangements 
should  be  made  at  the  time  of  hiring  and  should  not  be  left 
open  to  invite  dispute  *  *  *.  If  the  firm  requisitioned 
for  a  tailor  and  put  him  to  work  as  a  cleaner  *  *  *  it  is 
the  firm's  loss  and  not  the  tailor's." 

Even  in  the  case  of  newly  hired  workers  for  whose  opera- 
tion no  established  scale  exists,  the  workers'  interests  in  main- 
taining their  customary  wage  standards  are  protected.  In 
such  cases  the  new  worker  is  entitled  to  receive  the  wage  re- 
ceived by  him  in  his  previous  place  of  employment.  This 
applied  until  recently  to  the  cutters  and  in  particular  to  the 
trimmers  before  their  earnings  were  determined  by  the 
measure  of  their  production.  Several  cases  have  been 
brought  before  the  Trade  Board  in  which  employers  had 
objected  to  accepting  cutters  or  trimmers  sent  by  the  union 
and  paying  them  the  wages  paid  in  their  last  employment. 
Except  in  one  case,  where  a  trimmer  had  been  last  employed 
in  an  independent  house  to  which  he  had  gone  at  a  consider- 
ably higher  wage  than  he  had  received  in  an  association  house, 
the  Trade  Board  has  ruled  against  the  employers  on  this 
question.  When  the  decision  in  these  cases  was  appealed  to 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  for  review,^^"  it  was  sustained,  the 
chairman  ruling  as  follows:  '*  For  the  present,  unless  ob- 
viously unfit,  or  intoxicated  or  recently  discharged  for  cause, 
and  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  irregularity  is  involved  in 
the  filhng  of  the  requisition,  the  firm  shall  accept  the  trimmer 
sent  by  the  union  and  place  him  at  work  at  the  wage  received 
in  the  place  of  last  emplojrment,  provided  this  is  an  associa- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    847 

tion  house."  Although  this  rule,  at  the  time  it  was  made, 
was  calculated  to  work  to  the  advantage  of  the  trimmer 
changing  his  place  of  employment,  it  was  a  fair  rule  in  view 
of  the  fact,  pointed  out  by  the  chairman,  that  at  a  time  of 
strong  demand  for  trimmers  in  the  market,  the  union  had 
accepted  responsibility  for  holding  its  members  on  the  job, 
when  it  was  easily  possible  for  them  to  secure  more  money 
elsewhere  and  when  it  would  have  been  possible  for  the  work- 
ers to  have  exacted  higher  wages  than  they  had  received  in 
their  last  place  of  employment. 

The  exception  made  on  behalf  of  the  trimmer  last  em- 
ployed in  an  independent  house  rests  on  the  same  principle. 
During  the  time  of  active  competition  among  employers  for 
workers,  the  union's  responsibility  for  restraining  its  mem- 
bers from  leaving  their  places  of  employment  for  higher 
wages  elsewhere  had  not  extended  to  the  independent  houses, 
with  the  result  that  the  wages  there  paid  ranged  higher  than 
in  association  houses.  In  these  cases  another  decision  of  the 
Trade  Board,^^^  confirmed  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in 
connection  with  the  above  ruling,  applies : 

"  The  Board  recommends  that  where  a  trimmer  comes  from 
an  independent  house  *  *  *  he  shall  be  set  at  work  unless 
obviously  unfit.  The  firm  may  discharge  him  after  trial  or 
bring  the  case  to  the  Trade  Board  and  ask  that  a  fair  wage  be 
fixed  for  him.  If  he  is  discharged  he  shall  be  paid  the  wage 
received  in  his  last  place  of  employment.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  matter  is  brought  to  the  Trade  Board,  it  wiU  take  all 
of  the  facts  into  consideration  and  fix  a  fair  wage.  When  the 
case  is  brought,  however,  the  firm  should  signify  its  willingness 
to  continue  the  worker  in  his  employment  at  the  wage  fixed, 
reserving,  of  course,  the  right  to  discharge  for  cause." 

By  vesting  in  the  Trade  Board  the  power  of  fixing  a  fair 
wage  in  those  cases  where  the  maintenance  of  previous  wages 
might  be  inequitable,  the  decision  above  quoted  provides  pro- 
tection for  all  interests  involved.  At  the  same  time  it  re- 
moves the  question  of  wage  adjustment  in  such  cases  from 
the  field  of  individual  bargaining  and  places  it  under  joint 
control. 


348     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

PREFERENCE  IN  LAY-OFFS 

One  of  the  undisputed  rights  of  management  is  that  of 
laying  off  workers  for  administrative  reasons.  This  right, 
Uke  others,  was  exercised  by  employers  without  restriction 
until  the  union  through  the  agreement  defined  the  conditions 
and  the  procedure  under  which  workers  might  be  laid  off. 
The  necessity  for  lay-offs  arises  in  part  from  the  seasonal 
nature  of  the  clothing  business.  The  regular  rise  and  fall 
in  the  demand  for  clothing  and  the  changes  in  its  character 
from  season  to  season  impose  upon  the  manufacturer  the 
necessity  of  alternately  expanding  and  contracting  his  pro- 
ductive activities.  In  the  early  history  of  the  industry  prac- 
tically the  entire  burden  of  these  fluctuations  was  borne  by 
the  workers  in-  the  form  of  periodic  unemployment  and  over- 
employment. It  was  easy  for  the  manufacturer  to  reduce 
his  force  or  even  to  close  his  shop  during  the  dull  season, 
thereby  throwing  his  workers  out  of  employment.  He  needed 
to  assume  no  responsibility  for  them  at  such  times,  since  he 
could  readily  replace  them  with  the  resumption  of  operations 
the  following  season. 

With  the  formation  by  the  clothing  workers  of  a  perma- 
nent and  effective  organization,  the  evils  of  seasonal  unem- 
ployment have  been  gradually  alleviated.  The  up  and  down 
movement  of  business  from  one  season  to  another  still  con- 
tinues and  forces  the  manufacturer  to  adjust  his  production 
policy  to  it.  But  he  can  no  longer  shift  the  entire  burden 
on  to  the  backs  of  the  workers.  Nor  does  he  even  wish 
to  do  so.  New  forces  have  come  into  play  that  make  for 
a  stabilization  of  production  throughout  the  year  as  good 
business  policy.  But  more  particularly  it  has  become  good 
labor  policy,  and  not  a  little  of  the  credit  for  this  change 
belongs  to  the  union.  The  union  has  sought  ways  and 
means  of  meeting  the  periodic  unemployment  of  its  mem- 
bers due  to  seasonal  slackness  in  the  trade,  to  general  de- 
pression in  business  and  industry,  to  lack  of  orders  or  con- 
traction of  business  in  particular  houses,  etc.  It  has  devised 
a  variety  of  administrative  measures,  and  imposed  them  on 
the  employers,  for  spreading  work  and  employment  more 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    349 

evenly  through  the  season  and  generally.  Among  these  de- 
vices are  the  right  to  secure  the  reduction  of  over-crowded 
sections,  the  right  to  equal  division  of  work,  the  right  of 
transfer  without  loss  of  earnings,  permanency  of  tenure  and 
the  right  to  the  job,  rotation  in  temporary  lay-offs,  etc.  But 
from  the  union's  point  of  view,  all  these  devices  are  made 
more  effective  and  more  valuable  in  stabilizing  employment 
and  equalizing  work  among  its  members  through  the  appli- 
cation to  them  of  the  preferential  principle. 

At  this  point  we  shall  consider  only  the  application  of 
preference  in  cases  of  lay-off.  The  lay-off  of  union  members 
is,  in  a  sense,  a  last  resort.  It  is  invoked,  even  temporarily, 
only  when  other  devices  are  inapplicable  for  administrative 
reasons.  The  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx  agreement,  while 
recognizing  the  right  of  the  company  to  initiate  a  lay-off, 
lays  down  the  following  general  limitations  upon  its  use: 

"  No  union  member  who  is  a  permanent  worker  shall  be 
laid  off  in  the  tailor  shops  except  for  cause,  whether  in  the 
slack  or  busy  season,  except  as  provided  herein.  Cause  for 
temporary  lay-off  may  be  alternation  of  working  periods 
in  slack  times,  reorganization  or  reduction  of  sections,  lawful 
discipHne,  and  such  other  causes  as  may  be  provided  for 
herein  or  directed  by  the  Trade  Board."  Under  this  pro- 
vision, the  conditions  permitting  the  employer  to  resort  to 
a  lay-off  of  union  workers  are  defined.  But  what  is  more 
important,  the  burden  of  proof  is  placed  upon  him  to  show  in 
any  disputed  case  that  such  conditions  actually  exist  to 
justify  the  action  taken.  The  judgment  as  to  the  necessity 
in  a  given  situation  for  laying  off  workers  rests  with  the 
Trade  Board. 

Preference  to  union  workers  in  this  connection,  however, 
signifies  more  than  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  impartial  ma- 
chinery against  the  action  or  decision  of  the  employer.  It 
means  a  practical  distinction  between  union  and  non-union 
workers,  in  favor  of  the  former,  in  the  order  in  which  they 
are  to  be  dismissed.  The  most  usual  occasion  for  putting 
a  lay-off  into  effect  is  a  shortage  of  work  in  the  section,  that 


350     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

is  not  merely  due  to  a  passing  irregularity  in  the  flow  of 
work  through  the  factory  but  to  a  seasonal  or  more  perma- 
nent slackness  in  trade  or  unbalance  between  sections.  Such 
a  condition  of  persistent  under-employment  of  the  people 
is  known  as  over-crowding  of  sections.  The  interests  of  the 
management  and  those  of  the  union  as  to  the  continuance 
of  this  condition  are  frequently  opposed.  In  general,  the 
management  prefers  to  keep  the  working  force  intact 
through  a  slack  period,  unless  the  section  consists  of  week 
workers.  The  union,  on  the  other  hand,  is  concerned  about 
securing  whatever  work  there  is  to  be  done  for  its  own  mem- 
bers and  distributing  it  equally  among  them.  In  other 
words,  it  seeks  to  realize  the  benefits  of  the  preference  prin- 
ciple, particularly  if  there  are  any  non-union  workers  em- 
ployed in  the  section.  Under  the  caption  of  "  Overcrowd- 
ing of  Sections,"  the  agreement  provides  in  the  following 
terms  for  the  manner  in  which  the  principle  is  to  be  applied : 

"  Overcrowding  of  sections  is  important  in  this  agreement  as 
the  point  at  which  the  provision  for  preference  (in  lay-offs) 
becomes  operative.  It  is  agreed  that  when  there  are  too  many 
workers  in  a  section  to  permit  of  reasonably  steady  employment, 
a  complaint  may  be  lodged  by  the  union,  and  if  proved,  the  non- 
union members  of  the  section,  or  as  many  of  them  as  may  be 
required  to  give  the  needed  relief,  shall  be  dismissed.  For  the 
purpose  of  judging  the  application  of  preference  the  Trade 
Board  shall  take  into  consideration  the  actual  employment 
condition  in  the  section,  as  to  whether  there  are  more  people 
employed  at  the  time  of  complaint  than  are  needed  to  do  the 
work,  and  whether  they  or  any  of  them  can  be  spared  without 
substantial  injury  to  the  company.  If  it  is  found  that  the 
section  can  be  reduced  without  substantial  injury,  the  Trade 
Board  shall  enforce  the  principle  of  preference  as  contemplated 
in  the  agreement." 

The  practical  effect  of  this  provision  from  the  union 
worker's  standpoint  is  to  minimize  the  shock  and  stress  of 
unavoidable  unemployment  for  union  members  by  shifting 
the  main  burden  of  it  to  those  workers  who  for  any  reason 
have  failed  to  join  the  union.  Incidentally,  the  arrangement 
supplies  a  solid  inducement  for  many  workers  to  come  into 
the  organization  who  might  not  be  amenable  to  less  material 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    351 

arguments.  The  motives  impelling  the  employer  to  give 
preference  in  lay-offs  to  non-union  workers,  thereby  running 
counter  to  the  interests  and  rights  of  the  union  under  the 
agreement,  are  various.  Frequently,  non-union  workers  are 
lower  paid,  as,  for  example,  apprentices  and  other  helpers 
who  are  not  members  of  the  union.  Their  retention  at  work 
while  union  men  were  laid  off  would  constitute  a  violation 
of  the  preference  provision,  and  in  case  the  employer  was 
guilty  of  bad  faiths  would  warrant  his  discipline  at  the  hands 
of  the  Trade  Board. 

The  situation  is  exemplified  in  a  complaint ^^^  brought  by 
the  union  against  a  firm  on  the  ground  of  having  laid  off 
two  trinmiers,  members  of  the  union,  while  a  non-union  boy 
in  the  canvas  section  of  the  trimming  room  remained  at 
work.  The  firm  contended  that  the  "  preference  in  lay-off  ** 
provision  applied  to  the  section  and  not  to  the  shop  as  a 
whole;  that  canvas  trimming  was  a  distinct  section  at  this 
house.  The  Trade  Board  in  its  opinion  overruled  the  firm. 
It  held  that  "  the  canvas  section  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  part 
of  the  trimming  room  in  applying  the  principle  of  *  *  * 
preference  in  lay-off.  The  non-union  worker  should  have 
been  laid  off  before  union  trimmers  were  laid  off.  The  Board 
directs  the  discharge  of  the  non-union  worker.  If  his  place 
is  filled  the  firm  is  first  to  file  requisition  with  the  union." 

Preference  to  union  workers  in  lay-off  does  not,  of  course, 
protect  such  workers  against  lay-off  in  the  event  of  a  neces- 
sary reduction  of  force  greater  than  the  number  of  non- 
union workers  employed  in  the  section.  In  that  event,  how- 
ever, preference  must  be  shown  to  those  union  workers  who 
have  been  longest  employed;  those  most  recently  taken  on 
are  the  first  to  become  subject  to  lay-off.  This  elaboration 
of  the  principle  is  embodied  in  a  provision  of  the  agreement 
entitled  **  Preference  of  Seniority,"  which  reads  as  follows: 

"  If  in  order  to  properly  balance  sections,  a  reduction  of 
force  be  required  greater  than  can  be  secured  by  the  laying  off 
of  a  non-union  worker  as  provided  for  herein,  then  there  may 
be  laid  off  those  who  are  members  of  the  union  in  the  order 
of  their  seniority  who  have  been  in  the  employ  of  the  company 


352      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

for  a  period  of  six  months  or  less,  provided  that  any  exception- 
ally efficient  worker,  or  any  especially  valuable  member  of  the 
union  may  be  exempted  from  the  rule  of  seniority.  Provided, 
also,  the  company  shall  give  notice  to  the  chief  deputy  of  its 
intention  to  discharge  under  this  clause,  and  if  he  fails  to  agree 
the  matter  shall  be  referred  to  the  Trade  Board." 

It  follows  from  this  provision  that  the  effective  initiative 
which  belongs  to  the  management  in  the  matter  of  lay-offs 
affecting  non-union  workers  only,  is  materially  curtailed 
when  union  workers  are  to  be  dismissed  or  when  an  excep- 
tion is  to  be  made  in  favor  of  some  particular  individual. 
The  union  must  be  consulted  in  such  cases  and  its  consent 
obtained.  That  failing,  the  Trade  Board  has  to  decide  the 
issue.  In  effect,  the  laying  off  of  union  workers  under  the 
seniority  rule  is  a  matter  for  joint  determination  in  every 
case.  The  principle  was  decisive  in  a  certain  case,^^*  in  which 
the  company  appealed  from  a  decision  of  the  Trade  Board 
holding  with  the  union  that  four  men  had  been  improperly 
laid  off  and  ordering  their  reinstatement  with  back  pay. 

In  this  case  the  company,  needing  to  reduce  the  force  to 
a  point  that  required  the  displacement  of  union  men,  had 
proceeded  to  lay  off  four  union  trimmers.  The  union  had 
protested  on  the  ground  that  a  number  of  non-union  men 
were  retained,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  agreement, 
while  the  union  men  were  let  out.  The  company  contended 
that  the  retained  men  were  virtually  union  members,  having 
filed  their  applications  for  membership,  and  by  reason  of  that 
fact  had  acquired  the  right  to  be  treated  as  members  by 
virtue  of  the  clause  on  "  Union  Membership  " :  "  The  pro- 
visions for  preference  made  herein  require  that  the  door  of 
the  union  be  kept  open  for  the  reception  of  non-union 
workers,  etc."  The  company  claimed  under  this  clause  that 
"  such  application  automatically  becomes  a  membership," 
and  that  therefore  it  was  justified  in  assuming  they  were 
members  of  the  union. 

In  deciding  the  contention  in  favor  of  the  union,  Mr. 
Williams  relied  upon  the  explicit  language  of  the  "  Pref- 
erence of  Seniority  "  clause.    He  ruled  as  follows: 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    353 

"  The  chairman  cannot  agree  to  this  interpretation  (of  the 
company),  which  would  enable  one  side  to  dispose  of  a  case  in 
dispute  without  any  judicial  process  whatever.  The  makers 
of  the  agreement  apparently  foresaw  difficulties  of  this  sort  and 
provided  a  method  of  dealing  with  them,  for  the  agreement 
states  *  *  *  that  '  The  company  shall  give  notice  to  the 
chief  deputy  of  its  intention  to  discharge  under  this  clause, 
and  if  he  fails  to  agree  the  matter  shall  be  referred  to  the  Trade 
Board.'  *  ♦  *  The  chairman  cannot  accept  any  *  automatic  ' 
interpretation  of  the  open  union  clause,  which  would  prevent  a 
disputed  case  being  passed  on  by  the  Trade  Board  before  action 
is  taken. 

"  The  four  men  who  were  laid  off  should  be  reinstated  with 
back  pay  as  directed  by  the  Trade  Board." 

Among  the  necessary  powers  of  management — necessary 
in  the  interest  of  efficient  administration  of  the  factory — ^is 
that  of  reorganizing  sections  and,  if  need  be,  abolishing  them. 
Such  changes  are  usually  the  result  of  important  innova- 
tions in  the  character  of  the  product,  and  sometimes  in  the 
methods  of  production.  Under  such  circimistances,  the 
problem  of  reconciling  the  conflicting  interests  of  efficient 
production  and  of  the  workers'  claim  to  fair  treatment  has 
to  be  met.  It  is  recognized  in  the  agreement  under  the 
heading:  "Abolishment  of  Section. — When  sections  are 
abolished,  the  company  and  its  agents  shall  use  every  effort 
to  give  the  displaced  workers  employment  as  much  as  possi- 
ble like  the  work  from  which  they  were  displaced,  within  a 
reasonable  time."  This  provision,  with  the  relatively  free 
hand  it  leaves  to  management,  does  not,  however,  apply  un- 
less the  section  is  entirely  discontinued.  Where  merely  a 
reduction  of  section  is  involved,  the  freedom  of  management 
is  further  limited  by  the  principle  of  union  preference,  as 
has  been  already  shown.  The  application  of  this  principle 
to  an  entire  shop  is  not  specifically  provided  by  the  agree- 
ment, but  it  seems  to  be  implicit  in  the  general  clause  re- 
lating to  preference  in  discharge.  At  any  rate,,  this  has  been 
the  construction  placed  upon  the  clause  by  the  Board  of 
Arbitration  in  the  following  case.^"* 

Factory  "  J  "  was  discontinued  by  action  of  the  company 
and  a  dispute  arose  over  the  disposition  of  the  workers  in 


354     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

that  factory.  It  was  understood  that  shop  "  X  "  would 
occupy  the  premises  vacated  by  Factory  "J,"  and  that  it 
would  be  enlarged,  and  thereby  would  take  care  of  about 
two-thirds  of  the  Factory  "  J  "  workers,  leaving  the  other 
third  without  their  usual  place  of  work.  The  company  pro- 
posed to  dispose  of  these  workers  according  to  the  principle 
of  the  "  abolishment  of  sections,"  under  which  it  would  try 
to  put  the  displaced  workers  in  other  positions  to  the  best 
of  its  ability.  The  union  held  that  under  the  principle  of 
preference  the  non-union  workers  should  be  first  laid  off 
and  the  union  people  be  given  their  places.  The  Trade 
Board  having  authorized  this  preferential  procedure,  the 
company  protested  against  the  decision  and  asked  for  a 
review  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration.  Against  the  decision 
it  urged  that  the  **  Seniority  "  clause  invoked  by  the  Trade 
Board  had  reference  solely  to  the  reduction  of  sections ;  that 
it  did  not  apply  to  a  shop  as  a  whole;  that  such  an  appli- 
cation would  be  wrong  and  harmful  and  work  injustice  to 
the  organization  (of  the  shop). 

In  deciding  that  the  situation  presented  in  this  case  prop- 
erly came  within  the  scope  of  the  preferential  principle,  Mr. 
Williams  ruled  as  follows: 

"  The  chairman  feels  that  in  the  present  case  we  are  facing 
practically  a  new  situation.  We  have  not  before  dealt  with  the 
shutting  down  of  a  large  factory  and  the  displacement  of  work- 
ers on  a  considerable  scale.  It  is  possible  such  a  contingency 
was  not  in  mind  when  the  *  Preference  of  Seniority '  clause  was 
adopted,  and  it  may  have  been  more  specially  designed,  as 
stated,  for  the  reduction  and  balancing  of  sections.  But  the 
situation  is  upon  us.  If  it  be  contended  that  the  clause  is  not 
in  point,  then  it  is  the  business  of  the  Board  to  provide  means 
adequate  to  deal  with  the  situation  in  the  spirit  of  the  agree- 
ment. 

"  As  indicating  the  principle  to  follow  we  have  a  clear  and 
unmistakable  guide  in  the  language  of  the  agreement  itself 
*  *  *  It  states :  '  Should  it  at  any  time  become  necessary  to 
reduce  the  force  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  this  agree- 
ment, the  first  ones  to  be  dismissed  shall  be  those  who  are  not 
members  of  the  union  in  good  regular  standing.'  This  state- 
ment is  made  without  reservation  or  qualification,  without  re- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    355 

gard  to  section,  shop,  or  place  of  employment.  It  is  clearly 
applicable  whenever  it  may  *  become  necessary  '  to  reduce  the 
force.  The  chairman  cannot  escape  the  conviction  that  there 
is  a  reduction  of  force  at  the  present  time  and  that  the  union  is 
within  its  rights  under  the  agreement  in  its  claim  for  the  dis- 
missal of  non-union  people. 

"  With  respect  to  the  method  of  putting  this  principle  into 
practice,  the  chairman  is  not  able  to  conceive  any  better  order 
for  laying  off  people  than  that  provided  by  the  clause  *  Prefer- 
ence in  Seniority.'  Whether  or  not  it  was  intended  for  such 
an  occasion  as  the  present,  it  has  the  advantage  of  the  sanction 
of  both  parties  for  something  very  similar,  and  if  we  want  to 
resort  to  so  disagreeable  a  thing  as  a  dismissal,  we  can  prob- 
ably find  no  way  that  is  fairer  or  more  acceptable." 

The  operation  of  the  seniority  principle  as  a  method  of 
preference  as  between  union  workers  on  a  basis  of  length 
of  employment,  is  not  defeated  by  previous  transfers  of 
such  workers  within  the  establishment.  In  other  words,  a 
worker  is  entitled  to  preference  in  lay-off  under  this  prin- 
ciple according  to  the  total  length  of  his  employment  with 
the  firm  in  question.  This  point  is  illustrated^'^  b}^  the  case 
of  Eva  S ,  who  had  been  laid  off,  as  the  union  com- 
plained, in  disregard  of  her  rights  under  the  "  Seniority  " 
provision.  This  girl  had  been  employed  by  the  firm  as  a  label 
sewer  for  several  months  after  which  she  was  transferred 
twice  to  other  sections.  When  it  became  apparent  that  her 
section  was  permanently  over-manned  and  had  to  be  reduced, 
the  labor  manager  searched  for  other  work  that  Miss  S. 
might  do,  but  finding  none,  he  informed  the  deputy  of  his 
intention  to  lay  the  girl  off.  Under  these  conditions  a  lay- 
off was  within  the  rights  of  the  firm.  But  after  hearing 
the  evidence,  the  Trade  Board  found  that  the  firm  had  not 
applied  properly  the  senority  rule  in  laying  off  Miss  S., 
for  two  of  the  three  girls  retained  in  the  section  had  been 
employed  more  recently  than  she.  It  appeared  that  the 
selection  had  been  made  on  the  length  of  service  in  the  sec- 
tion  rather  than  on  the  length  of  time  employed  by  the  firm, 
as  the  rule  clearly  requires.  The  Trade  Board,  therefore, 
directed  that  Miss  S.  be  reinstated. 

The  principle  of  preference  according  to  seniority  in  em- 


356     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ployment  has  its  counterpart  in  preference  according  to 
seniority  in  union  membership.  Though  this  latter  rule  is 
not  set  down  anywhere  in  the  agreement,  it  has  been  deduced 
from  the  most  general  principle  of  imion  preference  under- 
lying the  agreement.  Wherever  the  application  of  pref- 
erence does  not  entail  definite  detriment  to  the  interests  of 
efficiency,  the  presumption  of  the  agreement  is  in  its  favor. 
Under  the  caption,  "  Avoidance  of  Injury,"  the  agreement 
defines  the  limits  within  which  claims  for  preference  are  to 
be  enforced.    The  clause  reads  as  follows: 

"  Among  the  things  to  be  considered  in  the  enforcement  of 
preference  are  the  needs  of  maintaining  an  adequate  balance  of 
sections,  of  the  requirements  of  the  busy  season,  of  the  difficulty 
of  hiring  substitutes,  and  the  risk  of  impairing  the  efficiency  of 
the  organization.  The  claims  for  enforcement  of  preference 
and  for  avoidance  of  injury  to  the  manufacturing  organization 
are  to  be  weighed  by  the  Trade  Board,  and  the  interests  of  both 
claims  safeguarded  as  far  as  possible,  the  intention  being  to 
enforce  preference  so  far  as  it  can  be  done  without  inflicting 
substantial  injury  on  the  company." 

It  was  under  this  clause,  as  well  as  on  the  basis  of  a  verbal 
understanding  between  the  cutters  and  the  company,  that 
the  petition  of  the  union  was  originally  brought  for  the  ap- 
plication of  preference  by  seniority  in  union  membership. 
The  understanding  in  this  case^^^  was  to  the  effect  that  the 
temporary  cutters  employed  that  season,  who  had  just  be- 
come members  of  the  union,  were  to  be  subject  to  the  lay- 
off of  men  as  non-union  men.  Owing  to  the  novel  principle 
involved,  the  Trade  Board  referred  the  matter  to  the  Board 
of  Arbitration  for  interpretation  of  the  "  Avoidance  of 
Injury  "  clause. 

In  presenting  its  case  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  the 
union  contended  that  under  the  operation  of  the  preference 
clause  as  then  administered,  an  old  and  valued  member  of 
the  union  might  be  laid  off  and  a  recently  acquired  member 
who  joined  only  to  get  a  job  might  be  retained.  It  claimed 
that  this  practice  not  only  worked  a  substantial  injustice  to 
the  older  member,  but  it  also  injured  the  union  by  failing 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    357 

to  recognize  the  value  of  long  and  faithful  membership  and 
by  giving  preference  to  members  of  transient  connection  and 
possibly  sordid  motives.  The  company  replied  that  its  inter- 
est in  the  matter  was  purely  that  of  efficiency,  that  in  the 
lay-off  period  it  wanted  to  lay  off  the  less  efficient  worker 
and  to  retain  the  better  one,  and  that  it  wanted  as  wide  a 
range  of  choice  as  possible  for  its  selection.  In  this  inter-* 
est  it  had  exercised  the  choice  given  it  by  the  agreement 
without  regard  to  their  status  in  the  union,  and  solely  with  a 
view  of  retaining  the  better  workers. 

After  due  consideration  of  the  arguments  of  both  sides. 
Chairman  Wilhams  ruled  as  follows: 

"  It  appears  that  the  adjustment  of  conflicting  claims  of 
preference  and  efficiency  has  been  left  by  the  agreement  in  the 
Trade  Board,  which  in  this  case  passes  it  on  to  the  Board  of 
Arbitration.  There  being  no  specific  direction  on  the  point  in 
controversy,  we  must  fall  back  on  the  general  principles  on 
which  the  agreement  is  founded.  The  chairman  before  accept- 
ing the  office  has  stated  these  to  be  in  brief,  the  strengthening 
of  the  union  and  the  promotion  of  efficiency.  On  page  13  of 
the  agreement,  it  speaks  of  *  the  intention  being  to  enforce 
preference  as  far  as  it  can  be  done  without  inflicting  substantial 
injury  on  the  company.' 

"  In  balancing  the  claims  of  preference  and  efficiency  in  the 
present  instance,  it  seems  to  the  chairman  that  it  might  be  pos- 
sible to  grant  the  recognition  of  seniority  in  union  membership 
asked  for  by  the  union  without  inflicting  substantial  injury  on 
the  company.  They  ask  that  those  who  have  been  members 
of  the  union  for  six  months  or  more  shall  have  preference  over 
those  who  have  been  members  for  a  shorter  period  and  that  in 
case  of  a  lay-off  those  with  less  than  six  months'  membership 
shall  be  the  first  to  be  laid  off.  This  means  to  the  chairman 
to  propose  a  reasonable  disposition  of  the  question  of  prefer- 
ence by  seniority  of  union  membership  and  is  accepted  as  such 
by  him.  It  is  directed,  therefore,  that  hereafter  temporary 
workers  in  the  cutting  and  trimming  departments  who  have 
been  members  of  the  union  less  than  six  months  shall  be  laid  off 
before  those  who  have  been  members  six  months  or  longer.  In 
case  of  a  disagreement  about  the  term  of  employment,  the  Trade 
Board  shall  decide." 

The  union  is  directly  concerned  whenever  any  of  its  mem- 
bers are  laid  off.    As  long  as  they  are  involuntarily  out  of 


358     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

work  they  naturally  look  to  the  union  for  placement.  The 
union's  burden  and  responsibility  are  the  greater  the  more 
of  its  members  are  unemployed  and  the  longer  they  have  been 
idle.  If  the  organization  is  informed  in  advance  of  a  pro- 
posed lay-off  of  union  workers,  it  can  sometimes  make  ade- 
quate provision  for  them  without  loss  of  time  on  their  part, 
and  in  any  event  can  assist  them  in  finding  employment  else- 
where. It  is  from  considerations  of  this  character  that  the 
rule  has  sprung  up  requiring  the  management  to  give  notice 
to  the  union  of  such  proposed  lay-offs  and  to  take  counsel 
with  union  officials  with  a  view  to  reducing  to  a  minimum  the 
unavoidable  hardship  to  the  workers  concerned.  This  rule, 
as  we  have  seen,  has  the  sanction  of  the  agreement  whenever 
workers  are  to  be  dismissed  under  the  "  Preference  of  Senior- 
ity "  clause,  but  it  is  not  explicitly  made  to  apply  to  tempo- 
rary lay-offs.  The  extension  of  the  rule  to  such  situations, 
however,  has  been  effected  by  special  order  houses.  For 
other  houses,  it  has,  as  yet,  only  the  support  of  the  most  ap- 
proved usage  and  of  several  decisions  of  the  Impartial  Chair- 
man.   The  following  is  a  case  in  point.^^^ 

The  union  in  this  case  complained  that  the  firm  had  closed 
its  cutting  and  trimming  room  one  Saturday  and  also  laid  off 
three  cutters  without  taking  the  matter  up  with  the  union. 
The  question  of  laying  off  three  men  had  not  been  taken  up 
with  the  shop  chairman  until  just  before  closing  time  Friday. 
The  right  of  the  firm  to  close  the  shop  or  to  lay  off  workers 
was  not  questioned  by  the  union.  What  the  union  objected 
to  was  the  manner  in  which  the  firm  had  handled  the  question. 
The  Trade  Board  recognized  that  there  was  no  agreement 
for  ready-made  houses  as  for  special  order  houses  covering 
specifically  the  manner  in  which  such  questions  were  to  be 
taken  up ;  "  nevertheless  market  practice  and  certainly  good 
management  are  in  favor  of  advance  notice  to  the  union. 
Short  weeks  on  lay-offs  present  problems  to  the  union  as  well 
as  to  management.  The  problems  should  be  approached  in  a 
spirit  of  co-operation  and  not  by  arbitrary  action  on  the  part 
of  either.  The  lay-off  of  the  three  men  appears  to  the  Trade 
Board  to  have  been  uncalled  for  and  to  have  been  handled 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    359 

arbitrarily.  The  labor  department  was  not  consulted.  The 
shop  chairman  was  not  notified  until  just  before  closing 
time."  The  Trade  Board  directed  not  only  that  the  three 
cutters  be  returned  to  the  shop  but  also  that  they  be  paid  for 
time  lost. 

The  employer's  motive  in  failing  to  give  advance  notice 
of  an  intended  lay-off,  where  this  is  the  case,  usually  resolves 
itself  into  the  fear  that  some  or  all  of  the  workers  might  leave 
his  employ  prematurely  and  refuse  to  finish  out  the  work  in 
process.  But  such  conduct  on  their  part  would  not  have  the 
endorsement  of  the  union.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  employer 
deals  openly  with  the  union,  observing  his  responsibilities 
with  respect  to  preference,  conference,  etc.,  the  union  assumes 
on  its  part  a  corresponding  obligation.  It  undertakes  to 
keep  his  productive  organization  intact  by  refusing  to  recom- 
mend for  employment  with  other  firms  workers  who  quit 
their  places  without  notice.  In  view  of  this  fact,  and  of  the 
general  spirit  of  the  agreement,  the  union  has  gained  the 
right  to  be  consulted  and  notified  beforehand  whenever  a 
lay-off  is  contemplated  by  the  employer.  The  principle  of 
advance  notification  has,  indeed,  received  its  broadest  and 
clearest  confirmation  on  this  ground  of  mutual  responsibility 
of  the  parties.  To  this  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion in  the  following  case^^®  convincingly  testifies. 

In  this  case  a  firm,  preparing  to  discontinue  one  entire 
shop  had  dismissed  three  workers  without  previous  notice 
and  others  with  inadequate  notice.  When  the  case  came 
before  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  Chairman  Tufts  macje  the 
following  constructive  ruling: 

"  The  Board  of  Arbitration  concurs  with  the  Trade  Board 
on  the  point  that  this  case  is  not  definitely  covered  by  the  agree- 
ment or  by  precedents  in  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx.  This  pre- 
cise contingency  of  a  firm  closing  up  an  important  part  of  its 
business,  was  probably  not  in  the  minds  of  the  parties  to  the 
agreements.  The  question,  therefore,  is,  may  the  firm  act  in 
accordance  with  previous  usage  and  discharge  men  without 
notice  (as  in  the  case  of  the  three  workers  first  discharged  in 
this  case),  or  with  very  short  and  indefinite  notice,  or  does  the 


860     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

general  character  of  present  agreement  between  firms  and  union 
justify  a  different  view  of  responsibility. 

"  The  question  of  usage  has  repeatedly  arisen  in  hearings 
before  the  Board  of  Arbitration  for  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx. 
The  present  chairman  has  ruled  that  although  usage  raises  a 
certain  expectation  and  is,  therefore,  to  be  given  due  weight, 
it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  final.  The  question  whether  a  given 
usage  is  reasonable  may  be  raised.  Usually,  it  has  been  the 
union  which  has  claimed  usage ;  in  this  case  it  is  the  employer. 

"  The  Board  of  Arbitration  holds  that  the  older  usage  in 
accordance  with  which  neither  employer  nor  worker  had  any 
responsibility  to  the  other  after  the  end  of  a  day's  work  is 
not  in  the  interest  of  the  industry.  It  certainly  may  bear  very 
hard  upon  the  individual  worker.  In  the  case  in  question  some 
of  the  workers  were  apparently  given  no  notice  whatever  and 
they  were  thus  placed  in  a  serious  situation.  It  was  not  treat- 
ing them  with  proper  consideration  to  discharge  them  without 
notice.  It  is  possible  that  the  firm  might  fear  that  all  workers 
would  suddenly  leave  if  it  should  become  known  that  the  firm 
was  about  to  close.  This  ought  to  have  been  taken  up  with 
the  union  and  an  arrangement  worked  out  by  which  the  work 
on  hand  could  be  finished  up. 

"  It  is  stated  by  the  Trade  Board,  and  is  not,  so  far  as  I  know, 
denied  by  employers,  that  the  union  has  aided  to  a  large  degree 
in  stabilizing  working  conditions  and  preventing  men  from  leav- 
ing one  firm  suddenly  to  go  to  another  for  higher  wages.  There 
has  been,  therefore,  under  this  agreement,  some  increased  respon- 
sibility on  the  part  of  the  union.  This  Board  holds  that  it  is 
only  proper  that  there  should  be  an  increase  of  responsibility 
on  the  part  of  the  employers.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  this  par- 
ticular situation  will  not  often  arise,  but  this  Board  holds  that 
for  the  future  it  must  be  clearly  recognized  that  there  is  a 
mutual  obligation." 

A  large  reduction  in  the  working  force  of  a  firm  such  as  is 
entailed  in  the  discontinuance  of  a  shop  or  a  factory,  almost 
inevitably  involves  the  laying  off  of  a  considerable  number  of 
workers.  Short  of  a  system  of  insurance  against  unemploy- 
ment, which  does  not  yet  exist  in  the  industry,  such  a  crisis, 
especially  at  a  time  of  general  business  depression  and  in- 
dustrial contraction,  cannot  be  fully  met  by  the  union  alone. 
The  burden  is  one  that  the  industry — in  this  case  the  em- 
ployer— should  at  least  partly  share.  He  does  so  in  a  small 
measure  by  giving  the  workers  and  the  union  advance  notice 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    361 

of  the  proposed  closing,  as  contemplated  in  the  Tufts  deci- 
sion just  quoted.  But  in  a  seriously  depressed  labor  market, 
even  such  notification  is  of  little  avail.  A  larger  share  of  re- 
sponsibility for  the  workers  affected  must  be  assumed  by  the 
employer.  What  form  this  shall  take  in  the  absence  of  an 
insurance  fund,  was  the  problem  that  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion had  to  meet  in  the  following  case.^^® 

The  firm  in  this  case,  having  no  need  for  continuing  one  of 
its  two  vest  shops,  decided  to  merge  it  with  the  other.  This 
would  have  involved  the  simultaneous  displacement  of  a  large 
number  of  workers  then  employed  by  the  firm.  The  em- 
ployer's right  of  closing  a  shop  as  an  administrative  measure 
cannot  be  denied  under  ordinary  conditions.  It  serves  the 
ends  of  efficiency,  which  is  one  of  the  major  purposes  of  the 
agreement.  But  efficiency  is  not  the  only  purpose.  Of  equal 
if  not  greater  importance  is  the  maintenance  of  the  rights  of 
the  workers  as  human  beings  and  in  a  sense  partners  in  the 
industry.  In  the  language  of  the  preamble :  "  On  the  part 
of  the  workers  it  is  the  intention  and  expectation  that  they 
pass  from  the  status  of  wage  servants,  with  no  claim  on  the 
employer  save  his  economic  need,  to  that  of  self-respecting 
parties  to  an  agreement  which  they  have  had  an  equal  part 
with  him  in  making ;  that  this  status  gives  them  an  assurance 
of  fair  and  just  treatment,  etc."  The  conditions  in  this  case 
were  extraordinary,  and  the  union  challenged  the  firm's  right 
to  close  the  vest  shop  suddenly  without  making  some  provi- 
sion for  the  workers  employed  there.  In  meeting  the  issue 
thus  presented.  Professor  Tufts  made  the  following  notable 
ruling : 

"  In  general,  this  Board  is  always  in  favor  of  economy  in 
production,  provided  this  can  be  secured  without  injury  to 
other  more  important  interests.  In  the  present  case  the  Board 
holds  that  we  ought  to  be  considerate  of  the  conditions  caused 
by  this  very  large  reduction  in  work.  Although  we  have  as  yet 
no  adequate  means  of  caring  for  the  burdens  due  to  seasonal  and 
exceptional  maladjustments,  nevertheless,  we  ought  not  to  ag- 
gravate any  of  the  necessary  evils  but  ought  rather  to  minimize 
them.  Assuming  then,  that  the  desirable  thing  is  for  many 
of  the  vest  makers  to  find  work  elsewhere,  as  rapidly  as  possible, 


362     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

and  very  likely  that  for  the  younger  workers  this  work  will 
be  found  in  many  cases  in  other  occupations,  the  Board  holds 
that  the  company  can  well  afford  a  slight  additional  expense  for 
the  sake  of  avoiding  the  feeling  of  resentment  so  far  as  possible, 
which  follows  when  persons  have  entered  employment  supposing 
it*  to  be  permanent  and  later  find  themselves  out  of  work. 

"  The  Board  directs  therefore  that  until  October  1(5  weeks 
later),  the  merging  of  the  shops  be  suspended." 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    363 

PREFERENCE    IN   TRANSFERS   AND   PROMOTIONS 

When  in  1913  the  principle  of  union  preference  was  first 
introduced  in  the  relations  of  the  clothing  workers  with  the 
firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  and  Marx,  it  was  made  to  apply  only 
to  the  hiring  of  workers  and  to  their  dismissal.  In  other 
dealings  of  the  company  with  its  employes,  such  as  transfers 
and  promotions,  the  management  was  not  in  any  way  bound 
to  show  preference  to  union  members.  But  such  preference 
was  of  considerable  importance  to  the  union  in  its  quest  for 
control.  Without  it  non-union  workers  who  had  done 
nothing  toward  building  up  the  organization  or  toward 
achieving  the  working  conditions  and  standards  shared  by 
them  with  the  rest,  might  continue  to  enjoy  privileges  over 
union  workers  whenever  a  transfer  or  promotion  was  in  ques- 
tion. Furthermore,  the  absence  of  any  provision  for  union 
preference  at  these  points  tended  to  defeat  the  object  of  the 
preference  provision  in  connection  with  lay-offs.  The  reason 
for  such  a  result  is  to  be  found  in  the  ease  with  which  non- 
union workers  could,  at  a  time  of  reduction  of  force,  be  trans- 
ferred instead  of  being  dismissed,  or  could  even  be  retained 
in  their  places  while  union  workers  in  the  section  were  being 
transferred  to  less  desirable  positions  elsewhere. 

The  status  of  the  early  law  on  this  subject  of  preference 
and  the  way  in  which  in  a  critical  borderline  issue  it  might  be 
stretched  to  cover  even  certain  situations  involving  transfers, 
is  well  shown  in  the  case^®^  decided  by  the  Trade  Board,  and 
later,  on  appeal,  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  some  time 
during  1915.  In  the  reorganization  of  a  certain  section  it 
became  necessary  to  reduce  the  number  of  workers,  and  the 
company  removed  the  superfluous  ones  to  other  places.  Of 
those  retained,  one  was  a  non-union  girl,  and  the  union 
claimed  that  under  the  principle  of  preference  she  should 
have  been  the  one  to  be  removed  and  a  union  girl  retained. 
The  company  maintained  that  this  was  a  regular  case  of 
transfer  and  under  the  agreement  it  was  not  required  to  show 
"  preference  "  in  transfer  but  only  in  cases  of  hiring  and  dis- 
charge.   The  union  replied  that  this  was  not  a  case  of  trans- 


364     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

fer  but  a  case  of  lay-off,  and  as  such  came  within  the  scope 
of  the  preferential  principle.  The  union  pointed  out  that  the 
force  in  the  department  was  permanently  reduced,  and  that 
while  it  was  true  that  the  workers  had  been  offered  other  em- 
ployment, in  most  cases  it  was  of  so  disadvantageous  a  char- 
acter that  the  workers  could  not  make  wages  and  in  some 
instances  the  workers  had  quit  work  and  were  without  em- 
ployment, so  that  in  effect  the  removal  amounted  to  a  dis- 
missal. 

Basing  his  opinion  on  the  facts  as  stated,  Chairman  Wil- 
liams, of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  held  "  that  elements  are 
present  in  this  case  that  differentiate  it  from  ordinary  cases 
of  transfer ;  that,  in  principle,  it  partakes  more  of  the  nature 
of  a  lay-off  than  of  a  transfer,  and  in  view  of  this  preponder- 
ance of  the  element  of  lay-off  in  the  transaction  the  applica- 
tion of  preference  may  properly  be  asked  for  and  granted. 
The  chairman  does  not  find  that  the  Trade  Board  has  erred 
in  the  matter,  and  is  unable,  therefore,  to  grant  the  appeal 
of  the  company." 

The  union,  however,  was  determined  to  extend  the  applica- 
tion of  the  preferential  principle  to  all  cases  of  transfer  and 
promotion,  regardless  of  the  presence  or  importance  in  the 
situation  of  any  element  of  lay-off  or  of  hiring.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  later  agreements  with  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaff- 
ner  and  Marx,  the  union  secured  the  inclusion  of  the  follow- 
ing express  provision  bearing  on  the  subject  of 

Preference  in  Transfers 

"  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  transfer  workers  from  one  shop 
to  another,  the  non-union  workers  shall  be  the  first  to  be  trans- 
ferred, unless  at  request  of  the  foreman,  union  workers  are  will- 
ing to  go. 

"  Or  if  it  becomes  necessary  in  the  judgment  of  the  company 
to  transfer  a  worker  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  paid  section  or 
operation,  it  is  agreed  that  union  workers  shall  have  preference 
in  such  transfers.  Provided,  that  nothing  herein  shall  be  con- 
strued to  be  in  conflict  with  the  provisions  relating  to  transfer 
for  discipline,  and,  provided  that  they  are  qualified  to  perform 
the  work  required  and  that  their  departure  from  their  section 
does  not  work  to  the  disadvantage  of  that  section." 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    865 

In  the  course  of  the  six  years  that  have  elapsed  since  these 
provisions  were  first  written  into  the  agreement,  the  propor- 
tion of  non-union  to  union  workers  has  been  effectively  re- 
duced. This  process  of  unionization  has  gone  so  far  that  it 
has  deprived  the  preferential  principle  of  some  of  its  early 
significance.  Nevertheless,  cases  of  discrimination  continue 
to  occur  in  connection  with  transfers  no  less  than  with  lay- 
offs and  hiring  of  workers.  These  are  cases  in  which  union 
members  receive  at  the  hands  of  employers  less  favorable 
treatment  in  comparison  with  non-members  than  under  the 
preference  clause  of  the  agreement  they  are  entitled  to.  As 
a  rule,  the  discrimination  is  incidental  and  not  deliberate,  but 
this  does  not  diminish  the  need  for  vigilence  and  the  assertion 
of  its  rights  by  the  union.  A  case  in  point  is  the  following,  of 
recent  occurrence  :^^^ 

The  union  in  this  case  protested  against  the  transfer  of 
L.  C,  an  inspector-tailor,  from  Factory  "  A  "  to  "  B  "  and 
later  to  "  R,"  and  asked  for  his  re-transfer  to  "A,"  and  that 
a  non-union  man  in  "  A  "  be  laid  off.  In  support  of  this 
request  the  union  cited  the  general  preference  provisions  of 
the  agreement  relating  to  the  lay-off  of  non-union  men  dur- 
ing the  slack  season.  In  any  event,  the  union  maintained, 
the  rule  regarding  transfers  provides  that  non-union  workers 
are  to  be  transferred  unless  union  workers  are  willing  to  go. 
The  company  merely  contended  that  C  had  suffered  no  loss 
by  his  transfer  to  "  B  "  or  "  R."  At  the  time  there  were  four 
inspector-tailors  in  "  A  "  who  were  non-union.  The  Trade 
Board  held  that  in  view  of  this  fact,  "  these  men  by  the  pro- 
vision of  the  agreement  are  subject  to  lay-off  or  transfer 
before  union  men.  C  could  not  be  transferred  while  non- 
union men  were  retained  during  the  slack  period.  Nor  could 
he  be  transferred  against  his  will  while  non-union  inspectors 
were  available  for  transfer."  The  Trade  Board  accordingly 
directed  that  C  be  retransf erred  to  "  A."  If  this  transfer 
should  overcrowd  the  section,  non-union  men  were  to  be 
laid  off  in  sufficient  number  to  relieve  the  overcrowded  con- 
dition. 

Since  transfer  is  preferable  to  lay-off,  union  workers  are 


366      CLOTHIXG  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

entitled  under  the  agreement  to  be  transferred  from  an  over- 
crowded section  if  there  are  non-union  workers  that  can  be 
laid  off  to  make  room  for  them.  An  illustration  is  found  in 
the  ease  of  Anna  B.,^**  who  was  laid  off  because  of  slack 
work  in  Factory  "  B,"  where  she  had  been  employed.  The 
union  had  requested  that  she  be  transferred  to  Factory  "  R," 
where  a  non-union  girl  was  employed  at  similar  work.  The 
company  objected  on  the  ground  that  the  agreement  restricts 
transfers  because  of  overcrowded  sections  within  each  shop 
and  between  separate  factories.  The  complaint  was  then 
brought  to  the  Trade  Board.  The  evidence  showed  that  this 
non-union  girl  had  been  hired  without  a  requisition.  In  view 
of  this  fact  the  Trade  Board  directed  that  the  non-union  girl 
be  dismissed  and  the  place  given  to  Anna  B.  The  Board 
further  directed  that  Anna  be  paid  for  time  lost  between  her 
dismissal  from  "  B  "  and  her  date  of  employment  in  "  R." 

Had  there  been  no  irregularity  in  the  hiring  of  the  non- 
union girl,  it  is  still  probable  that  the  company  would  have 
been  obliged  to  dismiss  her  to  make  room  for  the  union  girl 
from  another  factory.  On  the  other  hand,  the  claim  of  a 
union  worker  to  preference  does  not  extend  to  the  point  of 
displacement  of  a  non-union  worker  in  another  section.  Nor 
does  it  involve  even  the  right  of  the  union  worker  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  a  section  other  than  his  own  where  there  exists  a 
vacancy,  unless  he  has  the  necessary  qualifications  to  fill  it. 
These  issues  were  tested  and  decided  by  the  Trade  Board^*^ 
in  two  instances,  which  are  here  summarized : 

The  first  instance  is  that  of  J  and  K,  who  had  been  mark- 
ing patches  in  Factory  "  L  "  when  laid  off.  The  union  asked 
that  they  be  placed  as  floor  boys,  as  there  were  two  non-union 
floor  girls  in  "  R,"  one  in  "  J  "  and  one  at  "  L."  The  com- 
pany objected  that  they  could  not  be  required  under  the 
agreement  to  displace  a  non-union  worker  who  was  not  em- 
ployed in  the  same  section.  The  Trade  Board  in  this  case 
found  the  position  of  the  company  to  be  sound.  It  "  cannot 
find  in  the  agreement  any  provision  as  to  preference  which 
would  compel  the  company  to  dismiss  non-union  people  em- 
ployed in  one  section  to  make  room  for  union  people  em- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    367 

ployed  in  another  section.  If  J  and  K  had  been  employed 
as  floor  boys  in  "  L  "  the  union's  claim  for  their  employment 
as  floor  boys  elsewhere  where  non-miion  floor  boys  are  em- 
ployed would  be  sound,  and  the  company  could  be  required 
to  dismiss  the  non-union  help  in  favor  of  the  union  workers. 
That  is  not  the  case  in  the  present  instance.  These  two 
workers  were  not  employed  as  floor  boys  and  they  cannot  get 
benefit  of  the  preference  provision  under  the  agreement." 

The  other  instance  is  that  of  N,  who  had  been  marking 
bolts  when  laid  off.  The  company  needed  bottom  sewers  and 
the  union  suggested  that  N,  who  had  had  a  little  machine  ex- 
perience, be  given  this  work.  The  company  refused  on  the 
ground  that  this  was  a  girls'  section  and  N  was  not  a  regular 
bottom  sewer,  and  they  were  not  compelled  to  put  him  in  the 
section.  The  Trade  Board  could  find  no  authority  in  the 
agreement  to  place  N  in  the  section  of  bottom  sewers  so  long 
as  he  was  not  a  bottom  sewer.  ''  If  he  were  a  bottom  sewer, 
the  union  might  have  a  claim,  even  though  the  section  were  a 
section  of  girls." 

Transfers  that  are  in  the  nature  of  promotions  involve,  as 
a  rule,  the  shifting  of  a  worker  from  one  section  or  operation 
to  another  where  higher  earnings  are  possible.  The  case  just 
cited  makes  sufficiently  clear  the  proposition  that  preference 
to  imion  workers  in  transfers  of  this  character  presupposes 
not  only  the  existence  of  a  vacancy  and  the  employer's  in- 
tention of  filling  it  but  also  the  union  worker's  ability  to  do 
the  work  of  the  other  section.  This  may  or  may  not  imply 
actual  previous  experience  at  the  particular  operation  to  be 
performed.  Experience  with  a  related  operation  may  in 
some  cases  be  adequate  preparation.  The  minute  division  of 
labor  prevaihng  in  the  larger  factories  carries  with  it  a  high 
degree  of  specialization  on  the  part  of  most  workers  that  pre- 
cludes expertness  in  more  than  one  or  two  operations.  At 
the  same  time,  there  are  enough  elements  of  similarity  be- 
tween a  number  of  different  operations  to  make  transfer  be- 
tween them  frequently  practicable.  The  question  of  fact  as 
to  whether  or  not  a  worker  is  "  qualified  "  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  employer.    It  is  to  be  determined  experiment- 


368     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

ally,  however,  that  is,  with  the  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
worker  recommended  for  promotion  by  the  union  and  other- 
wise eligible  under  the  agreement.  An  adverse  decision  by 
the  employer  in  advance  of  a  trial  for  the  candidate,  may  be 
challenged  by  the  union  and  appealed  to  the  Trade  Board, 
like  any  other  dispute  under  the  preference  provision  of  the 
agreement.  It  was  on  this  point  that  the  decision  of  the 
Trade  Board  in  the  following  case  turned:^®'' 

In  this  case  the  union  asked  for  promotion  of  Ethel  W., 
a  sleeve  lining  sewer,  to  a  position  as  cuff  tacker  in  Factory 
"  L."  The  union  claimed  at  the  hearing  that  this  girl  had 
spoken  to  the  labor  manager  about  the  promotion,  but  in- 
stead of  obtaining  the  position  the  superintendent  had  given 
it  to  a  non-union  girl.  The  labor  manager  testified  that  the 
superintendent  had  given  the  other  girl  the  place  because  she 
had  worked  one  time  as  a  cuff  tacker  and  was  therefore  ex- 
perienced. The  union  cited  the  provision  of  the  agreement 
under  the  head  of  "  Preference  in  Transfers  "  (see  p.  364 
above).  They  contended  that  this  section  required  the  com- 
pany to  give  the  position  to  the  union  girl.  The  company 
contended  that  they  were  not  required  to  give  her  the  posi- 
tion, as  one  of  the  provisions  is  that  the  worker  seeking  pro- 
motion must  be  "  qualified  to  perform  the  work  required," 
and  that  in  this  case  the  girl  was  not  qualified,  as  she  had 
never  worked  at  cuff  tacking.  The  union  rephed  that 
whether  the  girl  were  qualified  or  not  could  not  be  determined 
until  she  had  been  tried  on  the  job;  that  if  no  one  were  to  be 
promoted  unless  he  was  able  to  do  the  work,  no  promotions 
could  take  place  under  the  present  sectionized  system  of  pro- 
duction, and  the  company's  interpretation  of  the  clause 
would  make  the  whole  section  ineffective,  whereas  it  was 
clearly  the  intention  of  the  section  to  make  promotion  pos- 
sible and  that  union  workers  should  be  given  the  preference. 

The  Trade  Board,  after  considering  the  evidence  and  argu- 
ments in  the  case,  upheld  the  union's  position.  The  chairman 
ruled  that  the  section  of  the  agreement  in  question  "  was  in- 
tended to  give  the  union  workers  preference  in  promotions, 
that  is,  they  were  to  be  given  first  chance  at  the  job,  and  if 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    869 

they  were  found  to  be  qualified,  that  is,  were  able  to  turn  out 
the  work  efficiently,  they  would  be  entitled  to  hold  the  posi- 
tion. If  the  Trade  Board  were  to  accept  the  company's  in- 
terpretation, it  would  have  to  regard  the  provision :  '  Quali- 
fied to  perform  the  work,'  as  a  joker,  which  would  rob  the 
entire  section  of  any  significance.  If  promotions  could  take 
place  only  as  workers  were  '  qualified  '  in  the  sense  which  the 
company  urges,  no  one  could  be  promoted,  except  on  option 
of  the  management,  whereas  this  section  was  intended  to  lay 
down  a  rule  determining  preference  in  promotions  for  union 
workers."  And  in  accordance  with  this  opinion,  the  Trade 
Board  directed  that  the  girl  be  given  opportunity  to  do  the 
cuff  tacking. 

When  preference  in  promotion  is  accorded  to  a  union 
worker  over  a  non-union  worker,  as  in  the  foregoing  case, 
the  employer  is  not  limited  to  any  particular  individual  but 
is,  in  general,  free  to  choose  which  union  worker  to  promote 
to  the  position.  In  the  case  just  presented,  the  company  de- 
murred against  that  part  of  the  decision  requiring  it  to  give 
the  appointment  to  Ethel  W.,  as  against  some  other  union 
worker  in  its  employ.  In  meeting  this  question  as  to  whether 
the  company  has  liberty  to  select  the  girl  who  is  to  be  pro- 
moted, the  chairman  stated  he  did  not  find  anything  in  the 
agreement  to  limit  the  company  in  this  respect.  "  The  in- 
dividual to  be  promoted  must  be  a  union  member  qualified 
to  do  the  work  and  whose  promotion  will  not  work  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  section  from  which  he  is  promoted.  The 
union  holds  that  the  first  girl  to  make  application  for  the  pro- 
motion is  to  receive  it,  but  I  find  nothing  in  the  section  in 
question  to  warrant  this  construction." 

The  employer's  liberty  of  selection,  however,  even  as  be- 
tween union  workers,  is  not  unlimited.  It  may  not  be  used 
in  such  a  way  as  to  entail  unfair  discrimination  against  in- 
dividuals. There  may  even  be  said  to  be  some  recognized 
grounds  of  preference  as  between  one  union  worker  and  an- 
other. Among  such  grounds  of  precedence  are,  as  in  the 
matter  of  lay-offs,  those  of  seniority  in  employment  and  in 
union  membership.    The  following  Trade  Board  case  illus- 


370     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

trates  not  only  this  limitation  on  the  employer's  freedom  of 
selection  for  promotion,  but  also  the  application  of  the  experi- 
mental principle  for  determining  the  relative  qualifications 
of  the  union's  candidate  as  against  the  firm's. 

The  union  in  this  case^®'  complained  against  the  employ- 
ment of  a  man  new  on  quality  off -pressing,  while  an  old  man, 
a  former  off-presser,  was  available  for  the  work.  The  union 
contended  that  the  old  employe,  S.,  was  a  former  off-presser 
by  hand,  had  done  work  of  the  required  grade  as  a  bushel- 
man,  and  was  qualified  to  press  the  quahty  work  in  question. 
The  company  contended  that  in  the  selection  of  a  man  on 
week  work  they  were  at  liberty  to  select  any  man  they 
thought  fit  for  the  work,  and  further,  that  the  man  selected 
was  better  qualified  than  S.,  who,  the  company  claimed, 
could  not  do  the  work.  In  adjudicating  this  issue,  the  chair- 
man of  the  Trade  Board  held  that  "  the  people  had  a  griev- 
ance that  ought  to  be  determined  on  the  merit  of  the  two 
men;  that  unless  the  new  man  was  clearly  a  superior  work- 
man to  S.,  the  latter,  as  an  old  employe  of  many  years,  ought 
to  have  whatever  opportunity  for  advancement  there  might 
be,  the  more  so  as  he  had  been  displaced  as  a  regular  off- 
presser  when  the  machines  were  introduced."  Accordingly, 
an  examination  of  the  work  of  each  man  was  made.  The  re- 
sult appeared  to  show  that  S.  was  at  least  of  equal  ability 
with  the  new  man  as  a  presser,  and  the  Trade  Board  there- 
upon ordered  that  he  be  substituted  for  the  new  man  on  this 
work. 

Frequently,  when  transfers  from  one  section  to  another 
or  from  one  shop  to  another  are  under  consideration,  the 
principle  of  preference  to  union  workers  requires  that  the 
management  shall  not  proceed  alone.  Interests  of  workers 
and  of  the  organization  are  involved  that  can  only  be  prop- 
erly conserved  by  having  the  union  join  in  the  arrangement. 
For  example,  where  a  question  of  precedence  arises  or  as  to 
the  conditions  of  the  transfer,  it  is  of  importance  even  to  the 
employer  that  any  suggestion  of  discrimination  be  avoided. 
The  participation  of  the  union  in  fixing  the  terms  under 
which  such  transfers  are  to  be  carried  out  serves,  on  one 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    871 

hand,  to  protect  the  interests  of  its  members  concerned.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  insures  the  management  against  subsequent 
claims  and  complaints  by  workers  who  in  the  absence  of  such 
union  sanction  might  feel  themselves  disadvantaged  by  the 
change.  The  impartial  boards  have  recognized  the  need  for 
such  joint  control  over  critical  cases  of  transfer  in  several 
important  decisions.  An  instance  is  the  following:^®* 

The  firm  of  Hart,  Schaifner  and  Marx  proposed  to  dis- 
continue one  of  its  factories,  in  which  several  hundred  work- 
ers had  been  employed,  and  at  the  same  time  was  planning 
an  extension  of  one  of  its  other  shops  by  adding  about  one 
hundred  workers.  The  union  asked  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion that  these  additional  people  be  transferred  from  existing 
sections,  and  that  the  whole  matter  of  transfers  be  placed 
under  the  supervision  of  a  committee.  The  chairman  of  the 
Board  thereupon  directed  that  the  whole  matter  of  transfers 
caused  by  the  closing  of  the  factory  and  the  extension  of  the 
shop  in  question  be  subject  to  revision  and  approval  of  a 
committee  consisting  of  Messrs.  Marimpietri,  Levy  and  Mul- 
lenbach,  and  that  any  differences  arising  in  the  course  of  the 
adjustment  should  be  decided  by  Mr.  Mullenbach. 

The  need  for  proceeding  by  joint  agreement  and  consent 
has  been  recognized  even  more  clearly  in  the  matter  of  trans- 
ferring workers  from  one  section  to  another.  This  need  rests 
upon  the  fact  that  except  in  times  of  ample  employment  in 
the  market,  the  union  has  an  interest  in  controlling  and  re- 
stricting such  transfers  in  the  interest  of  its  unemployed 
members,  who  would  be  available  for  filling  vacancies.  The 
issue  was  presented  to  the  Trade  Board  in  a  case^*^  involving 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  company,  without  arrange- 
ment with  the  union,  might  transfer  a  worker  from  one  sec- 
tion in  one  shop  to  another  section  in  a  second  shop,  or 
whether  the  company  must  make  requisition  upon  the  union. 
The  Trade  Board  ruled  that  though  "  the  agreement  is  not 
specific  on  the  point,"  a  transfer  between  sections  was  "  con- 
trary to  the  agreement  and  to  previous  practice." 

From  this  decision  the  company  appealed.  Before  the 
Board  of  Arbitration  it  maintained  that  it  had  the  right  under 


372     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  agreement  and  had  "  times  without  number  "  exercised 
the  right  of  transfer  from  one  section  to  another;  that  the 
only  limitation  upon  such  right  was  that  the  worker  should 
not  sustain  uncompensated  loss  from  it;  and  that  the  right 
in  question  was  essential  to  efficient  management.  The 
union,  on  the  other  hand,  stated  that  it  had  no  objection  to 
transfer  from  one  shop  to  another  within  the  same  section, 
provided  of  course  that  no  uncompensated  loss  was  involved, 
but  that  it  did  object  to  the  transfer  from  one  section  to  an- 
other when  it  had  workers  out  of  employment.  It  contended 
that  no  transfers  from  one  section  to  another  had  been  made 
without  requisition  and  without  arrangement  with  the  union. 
The  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration,  in  agreement 
with  the  Trade  Board,  found  that  the  agreement  does  not 
specifically  provide  for  or  prohibit  the  transfer  of  workers 
from  one  section  to  another.  However,  he  observed  that  the 
right  appeared  to  be  imphcit  in  at  least  one  clause  of  the 
agreement :  "  If  it  becomes  necessary  in  the  judgment  of  the 
company  to  transfer  a  worker  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  paid 
section  or  operation,  it  is  agreed  that  union  workers  shall 
have  preference  in  such  transfers."  In  view  of  this  clause 
the  chairman  dissented  from  the  Trade  Board  conclusion 
that  the  arrangement  entered  into  with  the  worker  in  this 
case  was  "  contrary  to  the  agreement  and  to  previous  prac- 
tice." He  then  rendered  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration, as  follows : 

"  It  must  be  said,  however,  that  it  is  laudable  for  the  union 
to  seek  to  have  as  many  of  its  members  as  possible  share  in  the 
work  available.  That  was  its  desire  in  this  case.  It  is  equally 
proper  for  the  company  to  wish  to  give  those  on  its  payroll  as 
continuous  work  as  possible  and  to  protect  itself  against  the 
tendency  of  a  section  of  week  workers  to  spread  work  when  it  is 
slack.  That  was  its  object  when  in  this  case  it  arranged  with  a 
union  inspector-tailor  to  transfer  him  to  a  tailoring  job  in 
another  shop.  Where  there  are  two  proper  interests  involved 
the  chairman  feels  that  a  matter  should  be  worked  out  in  a  co- 
operative way.  Moreover,  unlimited  transfer  from  over- 
crowded sections  to  others  by  individual  agreement  might  lead 
to  the  break-down  of  the  section  system  assumed  in  lay-offs  and 
division  of  work  in  the  slack  season.     No  doubt,  if  there  were 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    373 

perfect  freedom  of  transfer  by  the  company,  the  union  workers 
would  ask  for  the  lay-off  of  non-union  workers  and  that  their 
places  be  filled  by  the  transfer  of  union  workers  from  other  sec- 
tions. Because  of  these  considerations,  the  chairman  urges 
that  transfers  from  one  section  to  another  in  the  tailor  shops 
be  made  as  arranged  with  the  union." 

The  agreements  in  Chicago  do  not  provide  for  the  transfer 
of  workers  between  different  houses  or  firms.  Yet  there  are 
situations  that  would  make  such  transfers  advantageous  for 
both  workers  and  employers.  This  applies  in  particular  to 
the  temporary  shifting  of  workers  from  "  ready-made  "  to 
"  special  order  "  or  tailor-to-the-trade  houses.  Each  of  these 
groups  of  houses  in  the  market  has  its  own  seasonal  fluctua- 
tions— its  busy  season  and  its  lull — and  these  do  not  coincide 
with  the  corresponding  seasons  of  the  other.  Consequently, 
when  the  ready-made  manufacturers  are  at  the  height  of  their 
production  period,  the  tailors-to-the-trade  have  scarcely  be- 
gun operations  for  the  season.  And  conversely,  when  these 
shops  are  in  full  swing,  the  factories  of  the  others  are  at  the 
end  of  their  season  and  running  more  or  less  far  below  capac- 
ity. At  such  times  it  was  customary  for  many  workers, 
especially  cutters,  having  been  laid  off  in  the  ready-made  in- 
dustry, to  seek  temporary  employment  in  the  special  order 
branch  of  the  industry,  and  vice  versa,  until  the  return  of  the 
season  in  their  own  branch.  It  did  not  follow,  however,  in 
all  cases  that  they  returned  to  work  for  their  former  em- 
ployers. Instead,  they  might  through  the  union  or  inde- 
pendently secure  places  in  other  houses,  in  this  way  imposing 
the  costs  of  a  high  labor  turn-over  on  the  industry  in  general 
and  on  the  employers  concerned  in  particular. 

Out  of  this  situation  there  arose,  late  in  1919,  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  certain  tailors-to-the-trade  for  an  arrangement 
by  which  temporary  transfers  of  cutters  from  their  own  es- 
tablishments to  ready-made  houses  could  be  effected.  The 
demand  for  cutters  in  the  market  was  such  as  to  make  it 
doubly  desirable  for  an  employer  to  keep  his  force  together 
from  one  season  to  another,  and  this  was  the  object  at  which 
the  arrangement  aimed.    Since  the  agreement  did  not  speci- 


874     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

fically  cover  this  situation,  the  employers  attempted  to  pro- 
ceed directly  in  the  matter.  But  the  union  interposed  objec- 
tion to  this  procedure  on  the  ground  of  its  interests  and  rights 
under  the  preference  provision  of  the  agreement.  The  matter 
came  to  an  issue  in  a  case  brought  before  the  Trade  Board^^* 
and  decided  on  November  20,  1919.  The  case  was  instituted 
by  two  firms,  which  may  here  be  designated  as  E.  &  Co.  and 
S.  &  Co.,  which  asked  the  Trade  Board  for  a  ruhng  as  to  their 
rights  under  the  agreement  to  effect  a  transfer  of  workers 
between  them.  The  facts  as  set  forth  by  these  firms  were  as 
follows : 

"  That  S.  &  Co.  (tailors-to-the- trade)  find  that  the  present 
volume  and  the  immediate  future  demands  of  its  business  do  not 
justify  the  employment  of  its  fuU  number  of  cutters  on  full  time. 
The  firm,  however,  wishes  to  be  in  a  position  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  its  next  busy  season  by  expanding  its  force  of  cutters, 
when  the  occasion  justifies  such  action.  In  the  meantime,  it 
wishes  to  make  an  arrangement  with  E.  &  Co.  and  possibly  other 
*  ready-made '  houses  for  the  temporary  transfer  of  certain 
cutters  to  such  firms  with  the  understanding  that  they  will  be 
returned  on  request  of  either  party. 

"  In  accordance  with  such  a  plan  of  transfer  the  labor  man- 
ager of  S.  &  Co.  consulted  four  cutters  in  their  employ  who 
have  had  experience  in  *  ready-made '  houses.  These  men  ex- 
pressed a  willingness  to  be  transferred.  The  shop  chairman 
who  was  advised  of  and  in  sympathy  with  the  proposal,  went 
with  the  four  men  to  the  union  headquarters  and  asked  for  their 
transfer.  The  deputy  refused,  saying  in  effect  that  if  E.  &  Co. 
wanted  cutters  they  should  have  made  a  requisition  to  the  union ; 
that  there  were  cutters  then  unemployed  who  were  available. 

Among  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  firms  in  support 
of  their  plan  of  transfer  were  the  following: 

2.  **  That  the  proposed  arrangement  is  beneficial  to  the 
workers  involved.  It  makes  for  a  periodic  expansion  and  con- 
traction of  the  cutting  force  according  to  the  demands  of  the 
business  at  various  stages  of  the  season  and  makes  for  uninter- 
rupted employment  both  to  the  workers  transferred  and  to  the 
permanent  force.  It  works  toward  the  permanent  employment 
of  the  workers  and  against  *  floating.' 

3.  "  That  it  aids  the  employer  in  maintaining  a  stable  and 
permanent  personnel,  which  is  essential  to  highest  production. 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    375 

It  is  especially  important  to  the  *  special  order '  houses,  which 
are  the  smaller  factors  in  the  industry,  to  exercise  some  measure 
of  control  over  the  supply  of  cutters  which  is  trained  for  their 
particular  requirements. 

5.  "  That  the  proposed  arrangement  is  in  accordance  with  a 
long  standing  practice  in  the  Trade  and  does  not  involve  condi- 
tions adverse  to  the  interests  of  the  workers  which  the  agree- 
ment is  intended  to  rectify    *     *    ♦  » 

The  union  in  its  argument  maintained  that  in  all  cases 
transfers  of  union  workers  must  be  approved  by  the  union, 
that  when  an  employer  desired  additional  help  he  must  make 
a  requisition  upon  the  union,  that  this  was  the  Hart,  S  chaff - 
ner  and  Marx  practice,  and  that  any  other  arrangement 
would  be  unsatisfactory  because  the  available  work  would 
not  be  properly  spread  among  the  membership  of  the  union, 
which  the  organization  was  expected  to  effect. 

In  the  course  of  his  decision  in  the  light  of  the  arguments 
advanced  by  both  sides  and  of  independent  investigation, 
the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  held  that : 

"  The  practice  of  the  Hart,  SchafPner  and  Marx  firm  does 
not  support  the  contention  of  the  firms  in  this  case  that  an  em- 
ployer '  is  not  bound  by  the  agreement  to  requisition  the  Union 
for  help  when  it  is  possible  to  secure  union  workers  in  some 
other  way.'  The  contention  (5)  that  the  arrangement  pro- 
posed in  this  case  *  is  in  accordance  with  a  long  standing  prac- 
tice in  the  trade '  is  of  no  weight,  for  it  was  one  object  of  the 
agreement  to  eflPect  a  change  in  that  practice  and  the  part  of 
the  agreement  here  involved  was  certainly  given  due  considera- 
tion in  the  conference  and  was  not  merely  copied  without  a 
knowledge  that  it  involved  a  change  from  the  past  procedure 
in  securing  help. 

"  The  Trade  Board  holds  that  Article  IV  of  the  Agreement 
(Preference)  means  just  what  it  says.  *  »  *  Jt  states  that 
*  whenever  the  employer  needs  additional  workers,  he  shall  first 
make  apphcation  to  the  union,  specifying  the  number  and  kinds 
of  workers  needed.'  It  is  left  to  the  union  to  determine  who  of 
those  properly  qualified  and  available  shall  be  sent  to  fill  the 
requisition.  But  if  the  union  for  any  reason  fails  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  to  send  workers  as  applied  for,  the  employer  is  at 
liberty  to  secure  them  in  the  open  market  as  best  he  can. 

"  The  Trade  Board  rules  against  the  main  contentions  made 
by  these  firms.     Transfers  must  be  made  in  harmony  with  the 


376     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

clause  in  the  agreement  providing  for  requisition  upon  the 
union  when  additional  workers  are  wanted.  The  Board  recog- 
nizes, however,  the  importance  of  what  is  stated  in  contentions 
2  and  3,  as  well  as  the  importance  of  spreading  work  among 
the  union  workers  in  the  trade.  It  seems  to  the  Trade 
Board  that  a  more  definite  understanding  relating  to  transfers 
should  be  agreed  upon  by  the  firms  and  the  union.  The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  union  have  offered  at  the  hearing  to  make  an 
arrangement  whereby  a  transfer  will  not  result  automatically  in 
a  higher  and  relatively  unfair  wage  when  a  man  returns  to  his 
regular  place  of  work  and  to  guarantee  the  return  of  men  loaned 
with  its  approval.  This  opens  the  way  to  secure  much  that  the 
firms  desire  to  secure  through  transfers  of  workers." 

The  union's  offer  to  insure  employers  against  excessive 
wage  demands  by  individual  workers  returning  after  tempo- 
rary employment  by  another  house  has  reference  to  the  way 
in  which  the  principle  of  wage  maintenance  in  transfers 
worked  out  in  a  time  of  strong  competition  for  workers.  A 
worker  might  be  employed  by  another  firm  for  a  short  period 
of  time  at  an  increased  wage  and  then  return  to  his  former 
position  to  receive  at  least  this  higher  wage — a  sum  out  of 
proportion  to  what  those  who  had  been  in  continuous  employ- 
ment were  receiving.  If,  therefore,  after  such  temporary  em- 
plojrment  elsewhere,  workers  were  to  be  required  to  return  to 
their  places,  not  at  the  increased  scale  but  at  the  rate  previ- 
ously received  by  them,  such  restraint  upon  the  workers  as 
regards  individual  bargaining  for  wages  could  only  be  exer- 
cised by  the  union.  The  employers  were  in  need  of  the  union's 
cooperation  in  this  matter,  and  the  union  offered  it,  together 
with  a  guarantee  to  return  the  workers  to  their  former  places 
by  way  of  the  union's  employment  bureau. 

But  the  employers  wanted  more  than  this.  They  wanted  if 
possible  to  eliminate  entirely  the  union's  intervention  in 
such  transfers,  and,  failing  that,  to  secure  joint  control  with 
the  union  over  the  selection  of  the  workers.  Accordingly  a 
month  after  the  foregoing  decision  had  been  announced  by 
Dr.  Millis,  the  firms  appealed  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration. 
In  their  brief  presented  to  the  Board^®^  they  raised  the  ques- 
tion of  strict  interpretation  as  applied  to  Article  IV  of  the 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    877 

agreement.  They  claimed  that  the  primary  purpose  of  the 
article  on  the  preferential  shop  was  to  give  members  of  the 
union  preference  over  non-union  workers,  and  not  to  give 
exclusive  control  over  the  allocation  of  labor  to  the  union. 
They  further  claimed  that  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  sec- 
tion in  question  with  an  exclusive  control  over  the  distribution 
of  employment  in  the  hands  of  the  union  would  preclude  a 
joint  emplojinent  agency,  which  they  considered  a  fairer  and 
more  efficient  method  of  finding  the  right  man  for  the  right 
place.  They  claimed  further  that  the  principle  of  collective 
bargaining  did  not  exclude  all  individual  bargaining,  for 
otherwise  the  preface  of  the  agreement  relating  to  **  the 
establishment  and  maintenance  of  a  high  order  of  discipline 
and  efficiency  "  would  be  defeated,  as  the  management  could 
exercise  no  function  whatever  in  selecting  the  men  whom  it 
needed  for  its  various  kinds  of  work,  but  would  have  to 
depend  entirely  upon  the  judgment  and  wish  of  the  union  as 
to  whom  it  might  employ.  The  firms,  therefore,  wished  the 
way  left  open  for  a  joint  employment  bureau,  and  in  particu- 
lar asked  for  a  ruling  on  the  principle  of  strict  interpretation, 
on  employment  of  members  of  the  union  without  requisition, 
and  on  arrangement  for  transfer  and  release  with  individual 
workers  without  the  intervention  of  the  union. 

On  behalf  of  the  union  Mr.  Levin  argued  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  agreement  was  explicit  and  that  if  the  proposed 
practice  of  transfer  were  permitted  two  other  provisions 
would  be  nullified,  namely  that  providing  for  the  dismissal 
of  non-union  help  and  that  for  equally  dividing  the  work  in 
the  slack  season.  He  also  stated  that  the  firm  was  given  a 
trial  period  of  two  weeks  in  which  it  might  decide  whether 
to  retain  any  worker  sent,  and  that  the  office  of  the  union 
undertook  to  exercise  discretion  as  to  the  kind  of  workers  to 
be  sent  to  a  particular  firm  in  order  to  select  those  who  would 
be  best  adapted  to  the  methods  and  standards  of  that  firm. 

In  rendering  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  in 
this  case  the  chairman  made  it  clear  that  the  principle  of 
broad  as  against  strict  interpretation  of  the  agreement  should 
govern.     He  pointed  out  that  wherever  there  was  doubt  as 


878     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

to  whether  the  words  of  the  agreement  expressed  the  definite 
intent  of  the  parties,  or  as  to  whether  the  case  in  question 
was  actually  of  the  sort  contemplated  by  the  makers  of  the 
agreement,  the  general  purpose  as  set  forth  in  the  preamble 
must  be  taken  into  account  in  construing  the  meaning  of 
particular  sections.  Proceeding  from  this  principle.  Dr. 
Tufts  ruled  as  follows: 

"  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Board  that  the  primary  purpose  of 
this  section  (concerning  the  preferential  shop)  was  to  give  pre- 
ference to  union  over  non-union  workers,  and  that  it  would  be 
going  beyond  the  clearly  expressed  purpose  if  it  is  interpreted 
to  provide  for  a  complete  and  exclusive  allocation  of  workers. 
It  is  stated  by  the  union  that  the  firm  still  has  some  choice  under 
the  clause  as  it  stands,  for  the  firm  has  two  weeks  in  which  to 
give  the  workers  a  trial.  It  does  not  seem  to  the  Board  that 
this  fully  meets  the  needs  of  efficient  management.  In  former 
times  the  attitude  of  the  employer  towards  the  requests  by  the 
worker  for  some  say  as  to  the  conditions  of  employment  was: 
*  Here  is  the  job;  take  it  or  leave  it.'  It  savors  of  the  same 
exclusive  attitude  if  the  union  should  say  to  the  employer  who 
desires  to  have  some  voice  in  selecting  the  particular  kinds  of 
men  which  he  thinks  would  be  suited  for  his  work :  '  Here  are 
ten  men ;  take  them  or  leave  them.*  Instead  of  the  former  atti- 
tude the  agreement  under  which  the  parties  are  now  working  has 
substituted  conferences  and  joint  action  on  a  large  number  of 
important  conditions  such  as  prices,  etc.  It  would  clearly  be 
more  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  agree- 
ment to  have  similar  joint  action  in  the  case  of  selecting  work- 
ers such  as  might  be  provided  under  a  joint  employment  agency 
or  an  employment  agency  supervised  by  the  impartial  ma- 
chinery. The  Board  would  therefore  hold  that  the  section 
in  question  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  giving  the  union  such 
exclusive  control  over  the  personnel  of  employes  as  to  exclude 
the  setting  up  of  such  a  joint  bureau  ♦  •  ♦  .  Giving  all  due 
credit  to  the  union  for  its  desire  to  fit  the  workers  to  the 
needs  of  the  different  firms,  it  does  not  appear  to  the  Board 
that  its  records  and  equipment  are  adequate  for  the  purpose, 
and  the  Board  believes  that  any  exclusive  assumption  of  control 
is  less  likely  to  be  fair  to  both  sides  than  a  joint  control  *  *  •" 

Up  to  this  point  the  decision  carried  a  concession,  at  least 
in  theory,  to  the  empolyers'  request  for  a  recognition  of  the 
principle  of  joint  control  of  hiring  for  the  purpose  of  future 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    379 

negotiation.  Over  against  this,  the  second  part  of  the  de- 
cision constituted  a  denial  of  the  employers'  particular  pro- 
posal to  deal  directly  with  each  other  and  with  their  indi- 
vidual workers  for  purposes  of  transfer,  instead  of  through 
the  agency  or  with  the  consent  and  cooperation  of  the  union. 
In  other  words,  the  principle  of  collective  bargaining  and 
agreement  was  reaffirmed  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration  as 
governing  any  arrangement  of  this  character.  The  Board 
continued : 

"  As  to  whether  the  principle  of  collective  bargaining  per- 
mits the  firm  to  make  individual  arrangements  with  the  workers 
for  transfers,  or  to  employ  members  of  the  union  without  re- 
quisition, the  Board  would  hold  that  such  arrangement  must 
be  subject  to  the  general  principle  of  collective  bargaining. 
So  far  as  this  Board  is  concerned  it  deals  primarily  with  the 
union  as  represented  through  its  officials,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
with  the  firms  as  represented  through  their  officials,  on  the 
other.  It  must  assume  that  the  parties  to  the  agreement  are 
the  union  and  the  firms  rather  than  the  individual  workers  or 
the  individual  foremen,  superintendents,  or  stock-holders. 
Therefore  any  bargaining  between  individual  members  of  the 
union  and  individual  foremen  or  others  representing  the  firms 
must  be  subject  to  the  rules  of  their  respective  organizations 
or  to  the  authority  granted  by  the  union  or  the  firms  respective- 
ly. Doubtless  there  are  numerous  practices  involving  individual 
bargaining,  but  these  must  be  regarded  as  subject  to  the  author- 
ity of  the  principals  on  each  side,  namely,  the  union  and  the 
firms.  Otherwise  it  would  be  quite  impossible  for  the  union 
to  be  responsible  for  its  men  or  the  firms  for  their  officials,  and 
it  is  a  necessity  for  the  proper  working  of  the  agreement  that 
there  should  be  this  responsibility  on  each  side.  In  the  case 
of  transfers  in  employment,  it  may  very  well  be  in  the  interests 
of  both  parties  that  certain  arrangements  should  be  made  for 
getting  men  in  successive  years  who  have  had  previous  experi- 
ence with  the  houses,  but  such  arrangement  should  be  worked 
out  under  a  general  plan  agreed  upon  by  both  sides.  The  deci- 
sion of  the  Trade  Board  recognizes  certain  desirable  features 
in  such  arrangements. 

"  In  summary,  therefore,  this  Board  holds  that  the  principle 
of  preferential  shop  is  to  be  interpreted  as  providing  for  joint 
rather  than  exclusive  control  over  allocation  of  workers,  and 
for  joint  arrangement  for  such  individual  bargaining  as  may 
be  desirable,  and  would  recommend  to  both  parties  the  need 


380      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  taking  up  this  matter  and  working  it  out  in  accordance  with 
the  general  spirit  of  the  agreement  and  co-operation." 

Following  out  this  recommendation  of  the  Board  of  Ar- 
bitration and  its  own  original  suggestion,  the  union  agreed 
with  the  manufacturers  upon  a  plan  of  transfers  under  joint 
supervision.  This  plan  provided  for  the  release  of  cutters 
from  their  employment  during  the  slack  period  in  the  trade 
to  take  employment  temporarily  with  another  house  on  the 
understanding  with  the  union  deputy  that  they  would  re- 
turn to  their  places  at  the  request  of  the  original  employer. 
By  this  arrangement  the  employer  was  assured  of  retaining 
the  services  of  cutters  whose  familiarity  with  the  work  in  his 
establishment  made  them  particularly  valuable  to  him.  At 
the  same  time  the  union  was  in  a  position  to  give  or  withhold 
its  sanction  for  the  transfer  of  each  and  every  cutter  thus 
released.  And  along  with  this  control  over  the  process,  the 
union  assumed  responsibility  for  the  return  of  the  worker 
when  needed,  on  the  terms  of  his  previous  employment. 

This  responsibility  of  the  union,  where  such  a  joint  ar- 
rangement had  been  entered  into,  is  enforcible  through  the 
impartial  machinery,  like  any  other  phase  of  the  agreement. 
In  one  case^^"  a  firm  petitioned  the  Trade  Board  for  the  re- 
turn of  a  cutter  released  on  temporary  transfer.  In  granting 
the  petition  the  Board  stated  "  that  the  firm  has  reason  to 
expect  the  cutter  to  be  returned  because  of  the  general  prac- 
tice, the  promise  made  by  the  cutter  at  the  time  he  left  and 
the  promise  of  the  deputy  to  see  to  it  that  all  of  the  cutters 
named  on  the  list  presented  to  him,  this  man  among  them, 
would  be  returned  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  season.'* 

Where  no  joint  arrangement  is  made  by  the  employer 
with  the  union  for  the  transfer  and  subsequent  return  of  the 
cutters  in  his  employ,  the  union  is  under  no  obligation  to  see 
to  it  that  such  cutters  return.  They  are  free  to  remain  in 
their  new  position  or  to  seek  employment  elsewhere  and  the 
union  is  at  liberty  to  send  them  out  on  requisitions  in  the 
order  of  their  application.  Formally,  it  is  true,  the  employer 
is  not  prohibited  from  individual  bargaining  with  the  workers 
in  reference  to  their  temporary  release  and  later  resumption 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    881 

of  their  places.  But  when  he  resorts  to  this  method  he  does 
so  on  his  own  responsibility  and  cannot  expect  the  union  to 
enforce  the  arrangement  in  his  favor.  An  illustration  is  at 
hand"^  in  the  refusal  of  the  union  to  sanction  the  return  of 
a  certain  cutter,  who  had  been  previously  released  with  prom- 
ise to  have  his  job  back  on  his  return.  The  union  not  having 
been  a  party  to  the  arrangement,  declined  to  recognize  it  and 
considered  the  cutter  as  having  quit  his  position  with  that 
house.  He  could  return  there  only  by  making  application 
to  the  union  office  for  employment.  In  disposing  of  the 
firm's  complaint  in  this  case,  the  Trade  Board  held  that 
"  The  union  was  clearly  within  its  rights  in  insisting  that 
this  man  take  his  turn  with  other  cutters.  The  proper  course 
in  case  of  a  temporary  release  is  to  have  a  joint  understand- 
ing and  to  make  arrangements  accordingly.  For  the  union 
to  observe  any  other  rule  than  that  of  placing  workers  and 
filling  requisitions  in  order  of  application  is  to  leave  the  way 
open  for  charges  of  preference  and  destroy  all  confidence  in 
its  employment  office.  The  only  exception  that  can  be  made 
to  this  rule  is  when  arrangements  are  made  at  the  time  of 
leaving." 


382     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

EQUAL   DIVISION   OF   WORK 

One  of  the  objects  sought  by  the  union  through  larger  con- 
trol over  the  hiring,  lay-off  and  transfer  of  workers,  is  to 
insure  a  more  equitable  distribution  among  its  members  of 
the  opportunities  for  employment  in  the  industry.  The 
principle  of  the  preferential  shop  is  of  direct  assistance  to 
the  union  in  this  endeavor  to  hghten  the  burden  of  unem- 
ployment for  its  members.  In  the  case  of  hiring,  we  have 
seen  how  union  preference  operates  to  allocate  union  workers 
to  jobs  in  their  order  of  application.  Those  longest  out  of 
work,  other  things  equal,  are  first  to  be  placed.  In  the  mat- 
ter of  lay-offs  on  account  of  over-crowded  sections,  non- 
union workers  are  the  first  to  go,  thus  leaving  the  available 
work  to  be  divided  among  union  workers  and  to  that  extent 
reducing  the  burden  of  unemployment  within  the  organiza- 
tion. When  union  workers  have  to  be  laid  off,  the  order  is 
determined  by  seniority  in  employment  and  in  union  mem- 
bership, and  the  organization  has  an  opportunity  to  coop- 
erate. When  union  workers  are  to  be  transferred,  not  only 
are  their  standards  maintained  but  in  the  case  of  transfers 
between  sections  and  between  firms,  at  any  rate,  the  union  is 
given  a  voice  in  the  arrangement.  It  is  insofar  enabled  to 
protect  the  interests  of  its  unemployed  members,  as  in  the 
cases  last  cited. 

But  the  efforts  of  the  union  to  conserve  and  to  spread 
work  among  its  members  are  not  limited  to  the  enforcement 
of  preference  under  the  agreement.  They  extend  to  the 
application  of  another  principle:  that  of  the  equal  division 
of  work  during  slack  seasons.  If  a  given  amount  of  idle- 
ness unavoidably  falls  on  union  workers  at  such  times,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  sharing  of  the  burden  among  a  larger  num- 
ber of  them  makes  it  easier  to  bear  for  each  and  all.  On 
this  point  the  agreement  provides  as  follows :  "  During  the 
slack  season  the  work  shall  be  divided  as  near  as  is  practicable 
among  all  hands."  This  provision  is  of  far  reaching  signi- 
ficance and  is  one  of  the  most  important  steps  achieved  by 
the  union  in  the  direction  of  stabilizing  as  well  as  equalizing 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    383 

employment.  It  places  responsibility  upon  the  manufacturer 
for  keeping  all  union  workers  in  his  employ  at  least  par- 
tially supplied  with  work  as  long  as  his  shops  remain  open. 
And  by  making  the  provision  enforcible  through  the  impar- 
tial machinery,  the  agreement  prevents  discrimination  on  the 
employer's  part  between  workers  as  regards  their  individual 
share  of  the  total  work  that  is  to  be  done. 

The  practical  significance  of  the  rule  of  equal  division  of 
work,  moreover,  is  heightened  by  the  application  to  it  of  the 
principle  of  preference.  Thus,  non-union  workers  are  not 
entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  rule,  i.  e.,  they  may  not  share 
in  the  work  in  the  shop  at  such  times.  As  part  of!  the  original 
decision  of  August  30,  1913,  interpreting  the  principle  of 
preference,^^^  this  point  is  covered  in  part  by  the  following 
provision : 

"  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  reduce  the  force  in  the  tailor 
shops  during  the  slack  season  in  order  to  give  a  reasonable 
amount  of  employment  to  the  workers  who  are  retained,  the 
Trade  Board  may  order  such  reduction  under  the  conditions 
hereinafter  mentioned.  The  principle  of  preference  to  union 
members  shall  be  applied  in  any  reduction  that  may  be  made 
and  the  method  of  making  a  reduction  on  account  of  the  slack 
season,  shall  be  as  follows : 

"  The  Company  shall,  in  its  discretion,  initiate  a  lay-off 
whenever  it  deems  the  condition  of  the  shops  requires  it. 

"  Should  it  not  exercise  its  power  in  such  a  manner  as  to  pre- 
vent overcrowding  of  sections,  the  Chief  Deputy  shall,  if  he 
deems  it  necessary,  make  application  to  the  company  for  the 
required  reduction  of  sections,  and  if  it  fails  to  comply,  he  shall 
appeal  to  the  Trade  Board  which  shall  decide  whether  or  not 
the  section  is  overcrowded  as  charged.  In  deciding  the  ques- 
tion of  overcrowding,  the  Trade  Board  shall  take  into  considera- 
tion the  claims  of  the  company  for  protection  of  its  organiza- 
tion, while  giving  effect  to  the  principle  of  preference    *    *    *." 

In  applying  the  rule  of  equal  division  of  work,  elements 
of  conflict  constantly  arise  between  the  interests  of  the  em- 
ployer and  those  of  the  union.  On  one  hand,  the  employer 
would  restrict  as  far  as  possible  the  operation  of  the  rule  of 
preference  in  this  connection,  which  obliges  him  to  dismiss 
non-union  workers  whom  he  would  otherwise  retain.     On 


384     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  other  hand,  the  employer  frequently  prefers,  when  work 
is  slack,  to  cut  down  overhead  costs  by  reducing  his  person- 
nel, especially  those  on  week  work,  and  dividing  the  avail- 
able work  among  a  smaller  number  of  people  of  his  own 
selection.  It  is  at  this  juncture  that  the  union's  insistence 
on  an  equal  division  of  work  among  all  his  imion  people  pre- 
vents some  of  these  from  being  thrown  entirely  out  of  em- 
ployment at  the  very  time  when  jobs  are  hardest  to  find. 
A  typical  case  of  this  kind^®'  is  that  of  a  firm  which  at- 
tempted to  discharge  a  number  of  its  workers  who  could  be 
spared  during  a  period  of  acute  depression  in  the  industry. 
The  firm  claimed  that  the  obligation  to  divide  work  equally 
during  the  slack  season  was  not  applicable  to  existing  con- 
ditions. The  Trade  Board,  however,  refused  to  release  the 
firm  from  responsibility  for  continuing  to  give  employment 
to  all  its  union  workers,  unless  further  investigation  should 
show  that  such  a  course  would  prove  to  be  impracticable. 

The  apparent  conflict  between  the  right  of  the  employer 
under  the  agreement  to  lay  off  union  workers  when  neces- 
sary to  reduce  sections,  and  his  obligation  to  divide  the  work 
equally  among  all  of  them  is  responsible  for  many  complaints 
by  the  union  imder  the  provision  in  question.  But  the  con- 
flict is  in  most  cases  only  apparent,  not  real.  The  right  to 
dismiss  union  workers  applies  merely  in  situations  calling 
for  a  permanent  reduction  of  the  force,  not  to  seasonal  slack- 
ness in  trade.  When  the  nature  of  the  situation  is  in  dispute 
it  is  left  to  the  Trade  Board  to  decide.  Thus  we  have  the 
case  of  one  O,^®*  a  pocket  maker,  in  whose  behalf  the  union 
complained  that  he  had  been  discharged  without  cause. 

At  the  hearing  the  union  maintained  that  this  worker  had 
been  discharged  in  violation  of  the  clause  in  the  agreement 
providing  for  equal  division  of  work  during  the  slack  season. 
The  firm  contended,  on  the  other  hand,  that  under  another 
section  of  the  agreement  it  had  a  right  to  discharge  union 
men  whenever  necessary,  provided  that  any  non-union  men 
were  laid  off  first.  It  contended,  furthermore,  that  it  was 
judge  of  when  a  situation  made  it  "  necessary  "  to  discharge 
a  worker  or  workers.    It  contended,  finally,  that  a  reduction 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    885 

of  the  number  in  the  section  involved  in  this  case  was 
"  necessary  "  in  order  to  prevent  the  workers  (all  on  week 
work)  from  '*  going  slow  "  and  thus  keeping  themselves  in 
full  employment. 

In  deciding  which  of  the  two  contending  principles  was 
applicable  in  this  case,  the  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board 
stated : 

"  The  evidence  shows  that  this  man  was  not  discharged  for 

*  cause,'  but  merely  because  the  number  of  pocketmakers  was 
larger  than  needed  to  do  the  work  available  during  the  slack 
season.  The  Board  rules  that  one  section  of  the  agreement 
provides   explicitly   as   to  how  such  situations   shall  be  met: 

*  During  the  slack  season  the  work  shall  be  divided  as  nearly  as 
is  practicable  among  all  employes.'  The  particular  problem 
here  involved  being  covered  fully  and  explicitly  by  this  provi- 
sion, other  and  more  general  provisions  of  the  agreement  do  not 
apply.  With  reference  to  the  contention  that  if  all  are  re- 
tained, the  workers  may  then  *  go  slow  '  to  keep  themselves  in 
full  employment,  the  Board  merely  points  to  the  fact  that  the 
firm  would  in  such  an  event  have  ground  for  a  complaint  of 
restriction  of  output  and  could  ask  for  appropriate  action. 

"  This  ruling  does  not  mean  that  a  firm  may  not  seek  to 
remove  from  its  payroll  workers  not  needed  during  the  slack 
season.  It  may  quite  properly  seek  through  the  union  to  have 
those  not  needed  placed  in  jobs  elsewhere.  If  such  an  effort 
fails,  however,  the  available  work  is  to  be  divided  as  indicated 
above." 

The  Trade  Board  accordingly  ordered  the  pocket-maker 
to  be  reinstated. 

Not  the  least  significant  feature  of  the  foregoing  decision 
is  that  which  makes  the  cooperation  of  the  union  essential 
for  any  reduction  of  force  in  the  slack  season,  so  far  as  it 
involves  union  workers.  Until  the  union  can  find  places 
for  such  workers  elsewhere,  the  responsibility  for  keeping 
them  employed  on  equal  terms  with  other  workers  remains 
upon  the  management.  The  principle  underlying  this  de- 
pendence of  the  employer  upon  the  union  for  relief  from  a 
temporary  surplus  of  w^eek-workers  is  the  same  as  that  gov- 
erning the  transfer  of  cutters  and  trimmers  between  dif- 
ferent firms  in  the  market. 


386     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

The  equal  division  of  work  in  the  slack  season  is  a  right 
guaranteed  to  union  workers  by  the  agreement,  that  cannot 
be  defeated  by  any  general  powers  of  management  in  con- 
flict with  it.  It  is  a  right  that  takes  precedence  not  only 
over  the  employer's  right  of  reducing  sections  or  closing 
shops  temporarily  but  also  over  his  power  of  discipline.  This 
is  the  meaning  of  a  Trade  Board  decision^^'^  in  the  case  of  a 
worker  who  was  laid  off  as  discipline  for  burning  a  garment 
in  pressing.  The  firm  in  this  case  claimed  that  under  the 
agreement  it  had  the  full  right  of  disciphne  and  discharge, 
and  as  a  measure  of  discipline  the  firm  had  a  right  to  refuse 
to  give  work  to  one  who  had  carelessly  damaged  a  garment. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  Trade  Board,  however,  "  the  scope  and 
nature  of  the  discipline  the  company  may  inflict  is  limited 
by  the  terms  of  the  agreement.  It  does  not  seem  permissible 
for  the  company  of  itself  to  inflict  discipline  that  means  the 
suspension  of  one  of  the  clauses  of  the  agreement  as  the  one 
requiring  equal  division  of  work." 

The  only  limits  placed  by  the  agreement  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  the  rule  for  dividing  work  equally  are  the  limits 
of  practicability.  When  this  exception  is  invoked  by  the 
employer,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  him,  and  the  Trade 
Board  decides  upon  the  merit  of  his  contention.  In  a  case*^® 
bearing  on  this  point  the  union  had  requested  that  C,  a 
man  employed  in  the  under-collar  department,  should  share 
equally  with  the  cutters  in  their  temporary  lay-off  between 
seasons.  The  company  objected  to  laying  him  off  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  the  only  man  who  could  cut  under-coUars 
efficiently  with  the  up-and-down  machine,  and  also  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  not  been  having  equal  lay-offs  with  the 
cutters  in  the  past.  The  record  bore  out  this  latter  conten- 
tion of  the  company.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  C  had  had  no 
lay-off  for  over  five  years,  although  lay-offs  had  taken  place 
in  the  cutting  room  during  that  time,  the  Trade  Board  found 
that  C  was  not  required  to  accept  lay-offs  along  with  the 
cutters.    *'  Usage  has  established  his  status." 

In  practice,  the  equal  division  of  work  may  be  interfered 
with  by  an  attempt  of  the  employer  to  introduce  overtime 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    887 

work  in  any  section  or  department  in  which  some  workers 
are  temporarily  on  lay-oif .  It  is  a  well  known  policy  of  the 
union  to  discourage  overtime  work  by  some  of  its  members 
while  others  are  unemployed.  But,  under  certain  conditions, 
overtime  work  may  be  necessary  in  the  interest  of  maintaining 
the  balance  of  sections  or  the  flow  of  work  through  the  shop; 
To  make  such  overtime  possible  while  at  the  same  time  pre- 
venting its  abuse  and  providing  against  its  interference  with 
the  equal  division  of  work  among  all  the  people  entitled  to 
such  work,  the  Trade  Board  has  laid  down  the  following 
rules  :^®^  (1)  "  That  overtime  shall  not  be  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  normal  capacity  of  the  shop  so  long 
as  any  of  the  workers  are  laid  off;  (2)  that  where  a  section 
falls  below  the  normal  so  as  to  disturb  the  balance  of  the  shop 
and  to  make  it  necessary  for  other  sections  to  wait  for  work, 
overtime  is  permissible;  and  (3)  that  where  a  given  section 
works  overtime,  those  of  that  section  on  lay-off  shall  be  given 
equal  opportunity  to  work  overtime  when  they  return  from 
lay-off." 

The  equal  division  of  work  in  slack  season  may  be  ef- 
fected in  a  variety  of  ways.  Workers  may  be  employed 
either  short  days,  i.  e.,  a  reduced  number  of  hours  every 
day,  or  short  weeks,  i.  e.,  a  reduced  number  of  days  in  the 
week.  They  may  be  rotated  in  lay-off,  on  the  principle  of 
successive  shifts,  or  they  may  be  transferred  through  the 
intervention  of  the  union  from  one  shop  to  another,  or 
finally  from  one  firm  to  another.  In  the  last  case,  the 
process  of  equalizing  work  is  extended  by  agreement  from 
an  individual  house  to  the  market  as  a  whole.  The  particu- 
lar method  of  sharing  work  most  acceptable  to  both  sides 
at  any  given  time  and  place  varies  according  to  circum- 
stances. So  that  an  arrangement  that  satisfies  the  workers 
in  one  shop  or  season  may  raise  decided  opposition  in  an- 
other. The  curtailment  of  work  and  earnings  that  is  neces- 
sarily involved  when  any  division  of  work  is  put  into  effect 
is  in  itself  a  sufficiently  unpleasant  fact  for  the  workers 
concerned.  If,  then,  the  division  is  such  as  to  leave  any 
ground  for  doubt  as  to  its  equality,  if  any  of  the  workers 


388     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

feel  that  the  arrangement  works  out  to  their  disadvantage 
as  against  their  fellows,  mere  discontent  becomes  resent- 
ment, and  the  workers  have  a  grievance  for  which  it  is  the 
function  of  the  union  to  seek  redress. 

Because  of  this  direct  responsibility  of  the  imion  toward 
the  people  in  connection  with  the  equal  distribution  of  work 
in  slack  season,  the  need  for  management  to  secure  the 
consent  of  the  union  to  any  proposed  scheme  of  distribu- 
tion has  come  to  be  recognized.  The  matter  of  giving  prac- 
tical effect  to  the  rule  requiring  work  to  be  divided  has 
thus  become  one  for  joint  conference  and  agreement  in 
advance.  As  early  as  1915  this  solution  of  the  problem  was 
urged  by  Mr.  Williams  in  an  arbitration  decision^  ^^.  The 
dispute  in  the  case  before  him  turned  on  the  question  of 
how  the  provision  of  the  agreement  was  to  be  applied  in  a 
particular  situation;  and  out  of  this  arose  the  broader  ques- 
tion of  procedure  in  such  cases. 

In  a  certain  section  of  off-pressers  the  company  had  di- 
rected that  this  provision  be  enforced  by  laying  off  two 
workers  in  turns,  thus  giving  the  workers  an  equal  number 
of  days  in  the  shop.  The  union  contended  that  this  plan, 
while  it  secured  equal  division  of  lay-off,  did  not  secure 
equal  division  of  work;  that  owing  to  the  variable  output 
of  the  factory  some  days  were  more  favorable  than  others, 
with  the  result  that  some  earned  several  dollars  per  week 
more  than  others;  that  the  off-pressers  preferred  to  come 
into  the  factory  each  day  and  share  equally  such  work  as 
came  in,  and  that  they  should  not  be  deprived  of  a  method 
they  liked  and  to  which  they  were  accustomed  when  such 
a  practice  involved  no  expense  to  the  company.  The  Trade 
Board  having  ruled  that  "  all  people  be  at  work  unless  by 
special  agreement  some  other  arrangement  is  made,"  the 
company  appealed  on  the  ground  that  "  no  unnecessary 
limitation  be  put  on  the  management "  which  should  cause 
an  "  unnecessary  strain  upon  the  harmonious  relations  be- 
tween the  union  and  the  company." 

In  adjudicating  the  issue  of  jurisdictional  rights  thus 
presented  to  him,  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    889 

tion  ruled  that  the  principle  involved  in  this  case  of  division 
of  work  was  similar  to  that  discussed  in  his  "  Decision  on 
Joining  Sections."^^  In  this  latter  decision  he  had  held: 
"  This  right  like  others  not  specifically  limited  by  the  agree- 
ment, inheres  in  the  company;  but  it  is  to  be  exercised  in 
such  manner  as  not  to  infringe  on  the  rights  of  the  workers." 
On  the  present  occasion  he  reiterated  this  principle,  saying 
that  the  company  may  exercise  its  right  of  initiating 
changes  in  the  organization  of  work  in  the  shop  by  admin- 
istrative order,  as  recognized  in  previous  decisions,  but  must 
not  invade  the  rights  of  the  workman  in  so  doing.  "  Any 
such  act  if  it  causes  a  complaint  is  subject  to  review."  But, 
in  conclusion,  the  Chairman  went  further  than  this.  He 
stated : 

"  In  view  of  the  discontent  and  injury  to  the  good  relations 
between  workers  and  company  which  need  to  be  sedulously  cul- 
tivated and  maintained,  the  chairman  strongly  recommends  that 
the  company  confer  with  the  representatives  of  the  workers 
before  initiating  any  changes  hkely  to  be  objected  to  as  in- 
jurious by  those  they  are  designed  to  affect.  Such  a  conference 
becomes  imperative  when  established  wages  or  practices  are 
affected  by  the  proposed  change." 

The  rule  requiring  the  equal  distribution  of  work  in  slack 
season  applies  not  merely  to  the  workers  in  a  given  sec- 
tion, or  even  to  the  tailor  shop  as  a  whole,  but  to  all  the 
workers  in  all  the  shops  of  a  given  firm.  Thus,  if  a  firm 
has  two  tailor  shops,  the  Trade  Board  has  ruled  that  the 
division  of  work  between  the  two  shops  should  be  equalized 
as  regularly  as  possible  in  order  to  avoid  dissatisfaction. 
In  one  such  case^®^  the  Board  proposed  that  the  problem 
be  met  by  a  conference  between  the  firm  and  the  union.  At 
the  same  time  the  Board  suggested  the  transfer  of  some 
of  the  workers  from  one  shop  to  the  other  by  joint  ar- 
rangement, as  a  possible  way  of  sharing  the  work  equally 
among  all. 

In  another  case,^"°  the  firm  with  the  consent  of  the  imion, 
had  divided  its  Shop  No.  5,  to  establish  Shop  No.  6  with 
half  of  the  workers  from  No.  5.     Later  the  union  com- 


390     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

plained  that  the  workers  in  Shop  No.  6  had  not  received 
as  much  work  as  those  in  Shop  No.  5.  On  the  basis  of 
data  showing  the  distribution  of  work  between  the  two 
shops,  the  Trade  Board  decided  that  "  the  shops  must  be 
kept  distinct  with  approximately  the  same  amount  of  work 
over  a  given  period  of  time  or  reunited  and  put  on  the 
previous  basis.  The  division  of  Shop  No.  5  was  certain 
to  lead  to  dissatisfaction  if  those  who  were  transferred  did 
not  have  the  same  opportunity  for  employment  as  those 
who  continued  in  Shop  No.  5.  This  does  not  mean  hair- 
splitting exactness  with  respect  to  hours  or  earnings,  but 
it  does  mean  approximate  equality.  With  these  considera- 
tions to  guide,  the  chairman  suggested  a  conference  be- 
tween the  firm  and  the  union. 

The  rule  for  dividing  the  work  equally  between  different 
tailor  shops  of  the  same  firm  applies,  furthermore,  not  only 
to  inside  shops  directly  controlled  by  the  manufacturer,  but 
to  outside  or  contract  shops  as  well.  The  status  of  con- 
tractors and  of  the  workers  employed  by  them  in  relation 
to  those  directly  employed  will  be  dealt  with  in  a  subsequent 
section.  At  this  point  it  is  sufficient  to  state  that  union 
workers  in  approved  contract  shops  are  on  an  equal  basis 
with  the  firm's  own  employes  as  regards  their  right  to  share 
the  work  in  slack  season.  In  a  case  in  point,^°^  a  firm  had 
sent  out  some  of  the  work  done  formerly  by  one  contractor 
to  a  second  contractor  who  also  employed  union  people 
and  maintained  the  market  rates  of  wages.  No  complaint 
had  been  made  by  the  union  for  two  months  after  the  change 
was  made,  thus  leaving  the  inference  that  it  was  agreeable. 
The  Trade  Board  held  that  although  the  firm  was  under 
obligation  to  provide  work  to  the  people  employed  by  the 
first  contractor,  those  in  the  second  contractor's  shop  had 
developed  a  similar  interest,  and  claims  to  the  work.  And 
the  chairman  ordered  the  work  to  be  divided  between  the 
two  contractors  as  it  had  been  prior  to  the  complaint. 

Even  where  the  several  shops  of  a  firm  are  engaged  in 
producing  different  styles  of  garment — such  as  overcoats 
in  one,  and  sack  coats  in  another — the  claim  of  the  workers 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    891 

in  these  shops  to  share  between  them  whatever  work  the 
firm  may  have,  has  been  recognized.  Thus  it  happens  that 
at  the  beginning  of  the  light-weight  season,  when  no  more 
overcoats  are  to  be  manufactured,  a  firm  may  deem  it  eco- 
nomical to  close  temporarily  the  shop  which  is  specialized 
for  the  production  of  these  winter  garments.  There  seems 
to  be  nothing  in  the  agreement  to  prevent  the  firm  from 
discontinuing  even  temporarily  a  department  of  its  busi- 
ness for  which  there  is  no  more  need,  by  laying  off  the 
workers  in  that  department  with  due  notice  in  advance, 
and  without  discrimination.  But  if  these  workers  are  quali- 
fied to  do  the  work  of  a  related  department  which  continues 
in  operation,  and  especially  if  they  have  on  previous  occa- 
sions shared  in  the  work  of  the  other  department,  there  is 
ground  for  their  claim  to  share  in  the  work  again. 

A  case  of  this  character^^^  came  up  before  the  Trade 
Board  in  the  form  of  a  petition  by  a  firm  for  a  ruling  as  to 
its  right  under  the  agreement  to  "  temporarily  close  down 
our  overcoat  shop  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  completed 
our  overcoat  manufacturing  program  for  this  season  and 
will  not  have  work  for  several  weeks."  In  support  of  its 
position  the  firm  contended  that  the  workers  in  the  overcoat 
shop  had  during  the  past  year  enjoyed  more  hours  of  pro- 
duction and  greater  pay  than  any  of  the  other  shops.  For 
this  reason,  the  firm  maintained,  to  close  its  overcoat  shop 
temporarily  would  not  be  an  infringement  or  violation  of 
the  equal  division  of  work  clause  in  the  agreement.  The 
union,  on  the  other  hand,  contended  that  past  practice 
should  continue;  that  the  agreement  was  for  the  clothing 
industry,  not  for  the  sack  coat  or  overcoat  industry;  that 
as  a  rule  workers  made  more  on  overcoats  than  on  sack 
coats;  that  hours  worked  in  the  overcoat  shop  were  inci- 
dental to  the  season;  and  that  the  practice  in  the  market 
was  to  go  from  overcoats  to  sack  coats,  or  vice  versa. 

The  Trade  Board  in  deciding  this  case  in  favor  of  the 
people,  held  that  "  the  interests  of  management,  apart  from 
practice  or  the  rights  of  the  workers,  make  it  inadvisable 
to  close  the  overcoat  shop  as  contemplated  and  disrupt  the 


392     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

working  force.  However,  the  Board  does  not  make  this 
the  basis  for  its  ruling.  Overcoat  workers  have  been  given 
sack  coats  during  the  slack  season  in  the  past  and  are  en- 
titled to  share  the  work  now     *     *     *." 

A  more  difficult  problem  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
worker's  claim  to  an  equal  share  of  the  work  is  presented 
in  the  event  of  a  more  permanent  contraction  of  business, 
such  as  would  ordinarily  lead  to  a  reduction  of  the  force. 
Even  then,  however,  the  principle  of  equal  division  has 
gained  recognition  as  being  preferable  to  outright  dismissal 
in  disposing  of  union  workers  in  a  time  of  depression.  The 
issue  arose  in  a  typical  case^^^  where  the  firm  had  aban- 
doned one  of  its  two  coat  shops  without  making  any  pro- 
vision for  the  workers  formerly  employed  therein.  The 
imion  requested  the  Trade  Board  to  order  the  firm  to  make 
room  for  all  of  its  coat  shop  employes  so  that  they  might 
share  equally  in  its  work.  Both  the  shops  (No.  1  and  No.. 
7)  had  been  closed  during  the  slack  season.  The  firm,  fail- 
ing to  reach  an  agreement  with  the  union  on  the  permanent 
discontinuance  of  one  of  them,  reopened  shop  No.  1  but 
kept  No.  7  closed  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  season. 

At  the  hearing  the  union  contended  that  all  of  the 
workers  employed  in  Shop  No.  7  must  share  equally  in  the 
firm's  work,  be  that  much  or  little.  It  based  this  claim  on 
the  clause  of  the  agreement  providing  for  equal  division  of 
work  in  slack  season,  and  on  the  practice  at  Hart,  Schaff- 
ner  and  Marx  when  shops  have  been  merged.  The  firm, 
objecting  to  the  union's  suggestions  for  keeping  all  the  peo- 
ple employed,  contended  that  under  the  agreement  it  was 
not  required  or  expected  to  go  beyond  what  was  practicable 
in  the  division  of  work.  It  also  pointed  to  a  paragraph  in 
the  agreement  reading:  "  Should  it  at  any  time  become 
necessary  to  reduce  the  number  of  employes,  the  first  ones 
to  be  dismissed  shall  be  those  who  are  not  members  of  the 
union."  And  by  direct  implication,  the  firm  argued,  it  had 
the  right  to  discharge  members  of  the  union  when  it  became 
necessary  to  reduce  the  number  of  employes. 

The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board  rejected  this  view  of 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    393 

the  firm's  rights  in  the  matter.  He  stressed,  on  the  con- 
trary, its  responsibilities.  Referring  to  an  earlier  Trade 
Board  case,  dealing  with  a  similar  situation,  he  quoted  from 
it  as  follows:  "All  Trade  Board  and  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tion decisions  bearing  upon  the  matter  have  been  to  the 
effect  that  some  degree  of  responsibility  has  been  developed 
for  all  imion  workers  brought  into  the  trade  and  employed 
by  a  firm  so  long  as  the  firm  continues  to  manufacture 
clothing."  The  chairman  then  stated  that  "  all  cases  thus 
far  coming  up  in  connection  with  the  closing  and  merging 
of  shops  have  been  settled  (by  agreement  except  in  two 
instances)  in  the  light  of  this  principle,  all  union  workers 
being  continued  in  employment  unless  it  was  impracticable 
to  do  so.  The  present  case  has  been  approached  in  the 
same  way." 

The  evidence  presented  at  the  first  hearing  on  this  case 
convinced  the  Trade  Board  that  it  was  not  practicable  to 
continue  shop  No.  7  or  to  enlarge  shop  No.  1  as  suggested 
by  the  union,  and  that  the  firm's  obligations  to  its  workers 
under  the  agreement  did  not  extend  that  far.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Board  felt  that  something  more  than  had  been  done 
was  called  for,  especially  at  a  time  "  when  employment  in 
the  community  presented  a  problem  not  to  be  enlarged  if  it 
could  reasonably  be  avoided."  It  therefore  called  for  exact 
data  on  what  had  been  done  in  transferring  workers  to  shop 
No.  1  and  on  what  possibilities  of  employment  this  shop 
afforded.  The  data  presented  at  the  second  hearing  showed 
that  somewhere  between  50  and  60  of  the  original  118 
workers  from  shop  No.  7  would  remain  unprovided  with 
jobs  and  individual  stations  even  after  vacancies  in  shop  No. 
1  had  been  filled  and  certain  additions  by  transfer  made. 
With  reference  to  these  the  chairman  announced  the  follow- 
ing decision: 

"  The  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  arrangement  can  be 
made  for  their  employment  that  will  not  be  open  to  some  objec- 
tion by  them,  their  fellow  workers,  and  the  firm.  Nevertheless 
it  feels  that  the  situation  is  such  that  they  should  be  given  a 
chance  to  share  the  firm's  work  by  *  rotating  '  with  the  others  in 


394     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

the  sections  in  which  they  have  worked.  The  chief  difficulty 
involved  in  this  from  the  workers'  point  of  view  lies  in  the  fact 
that  two  or  more  operators  in  rotation  will  in  a  few  cases  make 
use  of  the  same  machine.  To  meet  the  problem  of  adjustment 
required  the  Board  rules  that  each  operator  going  on  or  return- 
ing to  a  machine  used  by  another  in  this  rotating  process,  shall 
have  hour  work  for  the  first  two  hours. 

"  This  arrangement  for  a  merger  of  the  two  shops,  is  a  make- 
shift. It  is  recognized  that  quitting  for  better  jobs  will  before 
long  reduce  numbers  to  those  needed  to  man  the  shop.  The 
process  will  not  give  the  best  possible  selection  of  workers  and 
may  be  open  J:o  other  objections  by  the  firm.  The  payment  of 
a  limited  amount  of  hour  work  in  a  few  cases  will  cost  a  little. 
The  firm,  however,  has  responsibilities  to  the  workers  which 
should  and  must  be  met,  though  not  convenient.  The  Trade 
Board  regards  the  arrangement  *  *  *  as  practicable,  the 
situation  being  what  it  is,  and  called  for  by  the  agreement, 
which  provides  that  *  During  the  slack  season  ♦  *  *  the 
work  shall  be  divided  as  nearly  as  is  practicable  among  all  em- 
ployes.' " 

The  principal  method  recommended  by  the  Trade  Board 
in  the  foregoing  case  for  equally  distributing  the  work  is  that 
of  transferring  workers  from  one  shop  of  the  firm  to  another. 
This  method  combines  the  economy  of  reduced  overhead 
costs  to  the  manufacturer  with  the  advantage  to  the  workers 
of  sharing  on  an  equal  basis,  at  least  temporarily,  in  what- 
ever work  there  be.  Such  an  arrangement  is  sometimes  made 
by  voluntary  agreement  between  the  employer  and  the 
union,  and  in  that  case  the  matter  does  not  come  up  before 
the  impartial  machinery  unless  one  side  or  the  other  fails  to 
live  up  to  its  engagements.  Thus  in  the  following  case,^*'* 
in  which  the  union  charged  that  the  firm  had  not  carried  out 
arrangements  to  transfer  the  people  from  shop  No.  1  to 
shop  No.  4.  The  people  in  shop  No.  1  had  been  laid  off, 
while  those  in  shop  No.  4  were  working.  After  conference 
with  the  union  the  firm  had  agreed  "  that  the  work  was  to  be 
made  in  shop  No.  4  and  that  we  would  transfer  shop  No.  1 
workers  to  shop  No.  4."  The  complaint  of  the  union  was 
that  after  a  lapse  of  more  than  three  weeks,  a  considerable 
number  of  people  formerly  in  shop  No.  1  were  still  out,  and 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    395 

further  that  the  firm  was  reported  as  considering  sending 
work  out  to  contractors.  The  Trade  Board  ruled  as  follows 
on  the  action  of  the  firm: 

"  The  agreement  cited  above  contemplated  the  transfer  of 
shop  No.  1  people  if  and  when  there  was  work  for  corresponding 
sections  in  shop  No.  4.  In  other  words,  if  the  people  in  any 
section  in  shop  No.  4  were  working  the  people  from  the  corres- 
ponding section  of  shop  No.  1  were  to  be  called  back  at  once 
to  share  whatever  work  was  in  shop  No.  4.  The  Board  under- 
stands that  sections  in  shop  No.  4  have  been  working  and  that 
people  from  like  sections  in  shop  No.  1  have  not  been  called 
back.  In  the  degree  that  this  is  correct  the  firm  has  violated 
the  intent  of  the  agreement  and  is  to  be  censured  for  it.  The 
firm  is  directed  to  carry  out  the  agreement  at  once.  Procras- 
tination in  matters  of  this  sort  breaks  down  the  spirit  of 
negotiation  and  leads  to  unnecessary  Htigation.  The  Board 
would  state  further  that  to  send  work  out  to  contractors  in  the 
Ught  of  the  circumstances  noted  would  work  an  injustice  that 
the  firm  could  scarcely  defend  before  the  Trade  Board." 

When,  subsequently,  the  union  requested  the  Trade  Board 
to  order  payment  for  time  lost  by  workers  from  shop  No. 
1  in  consequence  of  the  firm's  dilatoriness  in  transferring 
them  the  impartial  chairman  directed  that:^** 

"  An  equitable  arrangement  will  be  to  give  the  workers  in 
question  an  opportunity  in  connection  with  lay-offs  to  make  up 
the  time  lost.  If  they  had  been  transferred  promptly  they 
would  have  had  some  of  the  work  that  has  been  done  by  others. 
It  will  be  fair  now  to  give  the  others  a  greater  amount  of  lay- 
off, that  these  few  may  have  their  share  of  work  *  *  *  The  Board 
is  of  the  opinion,  moreover,  that  the  firm  can  well  afford  to 
permit  the  representatives  of  the  workers  to  share  in  the  respon- 
sibility of  lay-off  arrangements  and  that  less  disaffection  will 
follow  such  a  course  of  action.  This  does  not  subtract  from 
the  powers  of  management.  Rather,  it  helps  to  fix  respon- 
sibility and  to  make  control  effective." 

The  apportionment  of  lay-off  periods  as  a  method  of 
equalizing  work  in  slack  season  is  most  commonly  applied  to 
week  workers,  notably  to  cutters  and  trimmers.  Since  their 
earnings  are  not  immediately  affected  by  the  flow  of  work 
from  day  to  day,  an  equal  division  of  time  is  at  least  as 
equitable  from  the  standpoint  of  earnings  as  a  strict  division 


896     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  work  would  be.  Moreover,  a  lay-off  extending  over  a 
week  or  two  at  a  time  may  be  utilized  by  the  worker  as  a 
vacation  period  or  otherwise,  while  a  shorter  work  day  or 
work  week  does  not  offer  corresponding  compensations. 
Notwithstanding  advantages  of  this  nature  on  the  side  of  a 
lay-off  system  of  dividing  work,  the  sentiment  of  the  workers 
may  in  a  given  situation  be  opposed  to  it.  We  have  already 
met  with  such  an  attitude  in  the  case  of  the  off-pressers  cited 
above  (p.  388).  The  determination  of  what  particular 
method  is  to  be  used  cannot,  therefore,  be  left  entirely  in 
the  hands  of  the  employer.  Although  in  connection  with 
the  case^*®  referred  to,  Mr.  Williams  had  recommended  con- 
ference between  the  parties  whenever  interests  of  both  were 
involved,  the  claim  of  management  to  sole  jurisdiction  in 
these  matters  has  not  been  entirely  relinquished. 

In  a  fairly  recent  case  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration^^* 
the  representative  of  the  firm  asked  for  a  definition  of  their 
rights  with  reference  to  the  equal  division  of  work  in  slack 
season.  They  claimed  it  was  the  function  of  management 
to  administer  this  equal  division  by  any  method  which  would, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  management,  give  the  best  results,  as 
by  rotation  of  lay-offs,  by  shortening  the  day  or  week,  or 
by  shutting  down  the  whole  shop  for  a  period.  The  Board 
of  Arbitration  ruled  that  the  method  of  administering  the 
equal  division  was  "  both  a  matter  of  management  and  a 
matter  of  convenience  to  workers.  Neither  is  absolute.  In 
case  an  agreement  cannot  be  reached  between  the  firms  and 
the  union,  upon  a  method  which  will  satisfy  both  of  those 
interests,  the  case  is  to  be  referred  to  the  Trade  Board." 

Despite  this  and  the  earlier  ruling,  however,  some  em- 
ployers persist  on  occasion  in  instituting  independently  some 
particular  form  of  division  of  work,  instead  of  previously 
consulting  the  union  and  securing  its  approval  for  the  ar- 
rangement. In  such  instances  the  union  obtains  redress 
through  the  Trade  Board.  This  was  the  procedure  followed 
in  the  case  of  a  firm^°^  that  according  to  the  union's  com- 
plaint, had  issued  orders  that  the  shop  would  close  Satur- 
days.   The  firm  stated  at  the  hearing  that  the  order  was  the 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    397 

result  of  business  conditions;  that  the  cutters  and  trimmers 
were  rotating  lay-offs  and  the  people  in  the  tailor  shop  were 
working  short  time  or  rotating  lay-offs,  but  that  even  with 
this  arrangement  there  were  not  enough  orders  coming  in 
to  work  the  full  week.  The  union  contended  that  any  pro- 
posed change  in  lay-off  arrangement  should  be  taken  up  in 
conference.  While  insisting  that  employment  should  be  for 
a  full  week  at  a  time  whatever  the  system  of  rotation,  the 
union  suggested  that  if  the  firm  wished  to  shut  down  Satur- 
days payment  should  be  made  for  a  full  week  and  overtime 
be  worked  during  the  busy  season  so  that  earnings  would  be 
spread  more  evenly  over  slack  and  busy  times. 

In  his  decision  in  this  case  Chairman  Squires,  besides 
recommending  a  conference  between  the  union  and  the  firm 
with  a  view  to  working  out  a  more  satisfactory  arrangement 
for  equalizing  employment,  rendered  the  following  opinion 
on  the  broader  issue: 

"  The  Trade  Board  feels  that  the  right  amount  of  coopera- 
tion should  make  for  an  arrangement  that  will  recognize  and 
protect  the  interests  of  the  firm  and  the  workers.  Neither  the 
firm  nor  the  union  can  escape  the  burden  of  slack  seasons,  but 
it  should  be  made  as  easy  as  possible.  Market  practice  is  not 
uniform  with  respect  to  lay-offs.  In  some  cases  the  short  week 
will  cause  more  dissatisfaction  than  a  rotation  arrangement 
even  though  the  earnings  in  the  aggregate  are  unaffected.  The 
firm  is  expected  to  meet  the  convenience  of  the  workers  in  the 
matter  of  lay-offs  so  far  as  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  efficient 
management." 

The  responsibihty  of  the  employer  for  alleviating  the 
necessary  evil  of  seasonal  unemployment  for  his  workers 
finds  its  most  effective  expression  through  his  co-operation 
with  the  union  in  putting  into  practice  the  rule  for  an  equal 
division  of  work. 


898     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

DIVERSION  OF  WORK 

The  operation  of  the  equal-division-of-work  rule  under  the 
preferential  principle  carries  a  further  implication  that  has 
yet  to  be  considered.  We  have  thus  far  given  attention 
chiefly  to  the  rule  as  it  stands,  that  is,  to  the  claim  of  the 
individual  worker  to  share  equally  with  his  fellows  in  the 
work  on  hand.  In  the  succeeding  pages  the  situation  will 
be  viewed  as  it  is  affected  by  the  application  of  the  principle 
of  union  preference.  For  not  all  the  employes  of  a  firm 
are  entitled  to  share  in  the  work.  Nor  do  those  who  are 
have  an  equal  claim  to  it.  Preference  involves  distinctions 
even  within  the  group  of  union  workers — distinctions  based 
upon  their  status  as  employes  of  a  particular  firm  and  in 
a  sense  analogous  to  that  of  seniority  in  relation  to  lay-offs 
and  transfers.  Where,  as  in  Chicago,  there  is  virtually  com- 
plete organization  of  the  workers  in  the  industry,  the  prin- 
ciple of  preference  gets  new  significance  by  becoming  at- 
tached to  other  factors  than  mere  union  membership.  In 
this  way  it  comes  to  serve  positive  policies  and  ends  for  which 
the  union  stands. 

Under  the  general  principle  of  the  preferential  shop,  it  is 
already  clear  that  imion  workers  have  the  first  claim  not 
only  upon  the  jobs  but  upon  the  work  in  the  shops.  This 
means  not  merely  that  they  shall  divide  among  themselves 
the  work  during  slack  season,  as  against  sharing  it  with  non- 
union workers,  who  are  first  to  be  laid  off.  It  also  means 
that  supervisory  employes — officials  of  the  management, 
members  of  the  firm,  foremen,  examiners,  etc. — shall  not  be 
considered  workers  and  may  not  participate  in  the  produc- 
tive work  of  the  shop  in  a  manner  to  reduce  the  share  of 
any  union  worker  employed  there.  The  impHed  principle 
imderlying  the  application  of  preference  in  this  field  is  that 
a  union  worker  through  the  fact  of  his  more  or  less  per- 
manent employment  with  a  firm  estabhshes  a  right  to  the 
job  and  to  all  the  conditions  and  privileges  pertaining  to  the 
job.  These  cannot  be  diminished  or  diverted  by  the  em- 
ployer at  a  time  when  work  is  slack.     It  is  at  such  times, 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    399 

however,  that  employers  are  under  the  greatest  temptation 
to  encroach  upon  the  workers'  acquired  rights,  and  the  union 
must  be  correspondingly  vigilant  in  protecting  these  rights. 
The  question  of  whether  a  foreman  may  during  the  slack 
season  perform  labor  that  would  otherwise  be  performed  by 
union  workers  came  up  before  the  Board  of  Arbitration^*^** 
on  appeal  from  a  Trade  Board  decision  as  early  as  the  spring 
of  1914.  The  company,  contesting  the  Trade  Board's  de- 
cision in  this  case  claimed  that  it  was  an  economic  waste  to 
let  its  foremen  remain  idle  during  the  slack  season  when  they 
might  be  put  at  productive  labor  to  the  advantage  of  the 
company,  and  ultimately,  of  the  industry.  The  union  re- 
plied that  this  saving  should  not  be  made  at  the  expense  of 
union  members.  It  held  that  to  permit  such  practice  might 
lead  to  serious  results  in  the  future,  inasmuch  as  there  were 
a  large  number  of  supervisory  people  who  under  such  a  rule 
could  be  used  to  displace  an  equal  number  of  union  work- 
men. It  held,  too,  that  the  matter  was  covered  by  the  agree- 
ment which  provided  that  in  the  slack  season  the  work  should 
be  equally  divided.  After  weighing  all  the  arguments,  Mr. 
Williams  announced  his  decision  as  follows: 

"  The  chairman  is  impressed  with  certain  points  of  value  in 
both  these  claims  (that)  are  worthy  of  being  conserved.  That 
economic  waste  should  be  avoided  is  a  truism.  But  the  chair- 
man feels  that  to  permit  the  foreman  to  take  the  work  which  the 
workers  feel  they  are  entitled  to  under  the  agreement  will  cause 
more  dissatisfaction  than  would  be  compensated  by  the  saving. 
He,  therefore,  does  not  feel  warranted  in  controverting  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  agreement  as  made  by  the  Trade  Board,  or 
of  reversing  the  decision.  He  recommends,  however,  that  the 
union  be  not  technical  in  its  objection  to  foremen  performing 
such  labors  as  do  not  run  counter  to  union  interests  in  a  tangible 
way,  and  that  they  be  encouraged  to  be  useful  in  such  ways  as 
may  be  possible  without  raising  greater  difficulties  than  can  be 
compensated." 

The  union's  contention,  in  the  foregoing  case  that  in  the 
absence  of  restrictions  upon  the  right  of  supervisory  officials 
to  share  in  the  productive  work  of  the  shop  such  officials 
might  be  used  to  displace  union  workers,  is  not  as  fanciful 


400     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

as  it  may  sound.  On  a  small  scale,  any  redistribution  of 
work  between  workers  and  their  supervisors,  though  inaugu- 
rated in  the  name  of  economy,  has  this  effect  if  it  enables 
the  firm  to  reduce  a  section  by  even  one  union  man.  The 
way  in  which  such  diversion  of  work  may  operate  to  reduce 
the  employment  of  union  people,  whether  on  week  or  piece- 
work, is  illustrated  in  the  following  Trade  Board  case.^®* 

The  management  in  this  case  had  given  certain  busheling 
to  the  examiners  to  do  which  had  previously  been  the  work 
of  the  armhole  pressers.  This  was  the  busheling  required 
after  repairs  on  the  coat  by  some  other  section,  and  there- 
fore not  to  be  done  by  the  armhole  pressers  without  com- 
pensation. In  this  case  the  armhole  pressing  was  by  hour 
work,  and  the  company  stated  that  it  was  opposed  to  having 
the  section  bushel  its  own  work  on  hour  work.  The  union 
contended  that  this  transfer  of  work  from  union  workers 
to  the  examiner  was  contrary  to  agreement  and  to  a  ruling 
pf  the  Board  of  Arbitration. 

As  to  that  ruling,  however,  the  chairman  of  the  Trade 
Board  did  not  agree  that  any  definite  decision  had  been  made 
forbidding  the  examiner  or  foreman  from  doing  work  under 
any  circumstances.  He  held  that  the  Board  of  Arbitration 
had  confined  itself  to  a  strong  recommendation  that  work  be 
not  transferred  from  the  people  to  a  foreman,  especially  dur- 
ing the  slack  season  and  where  "  such  labor  runs  counter  to 
union  interests  in  a  tangible  way."  In  the  present  case,  he 
held,  *'  it  is  clear  that  turning  busheling  over  to  the  examiner 
affects  the  interest  of  the  people  in  a  tangible  way.  It  de- 
prives them  of  work  and  compensation  that  they  formerly 
received.  By  '  busheling '  the  Trade  Board  refers  to  the 
busheling  required  where  the  error  or  defect  does  not  fall  in 
the  armhole  presser  section.  If  an  armhole  presser  does  not 
do  his  work  properly  he  can  be  required  to  bushel  it  without 
additional  cost  to  the  company.  But  armhole  pressing  when 
required  because  of  busheling  of  another  section  would  seem 
to  be  the  legitimate  work  of  armhole  pressers." 

As  part  of  the  same  case,  the  union  complained  that  a  boy 
who  had  been  doing  neck-marking  had  been  transferred  to 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    401 

another  shop,  and  instead  of  sending  in  a  requisition  the  com- 
pany had  given  his  work  to  the  examiner.  The  company 
stated  that  the  boy  had  been  transferred  to  other  work  with- 
out loss  to  himself,  and  that,  therefore,  there  was  no  loss  to 
the  people.  In  finding  the  company  in  error  in  this  case,  the 
impartial  chairman  ruled:  "  This  was  a  specific  task  per- 
formed by  a  worker  in  the  union  and  under  the  agreement. 
The  Trade  Board  cannot  see  how  this  position,  when  vacated 
by  transfer  of  the  worker,  can  be  filled  by  the  examiner.  The 
procedure  would  be  to  file  requisition  to  fill  the  vacancy  but 
not  to  pass  the  work  to  an  examiner."  In  a  supplementary 
decision  the  chairman  cited  in  support  of  this  ruling  the  pro- 
vision in  the  agreement  that  "  whenever  the  employer  needs 
additional  workers  he  shall  first  make  application  to  the 
union,"  etc.  And  he  concluded :  "  An  examiner  is  not  classi- 
fied as  a  worker.  He  is  excluded  from  the  provisions  of  the 
agreement  and  is  not  eligible  to  become  a  union  member  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  he  is  an  examiner.  Where  a  vacancy 
occurs,  as  in  this  case,  the  company  cannot  substitute  a  non- 
union worker  for  the  union  man  until  application  has  first 
been  made  to  the  union.  The  agreement  is  clear  on  this 
point." 

Conflict  over  the  right  to  the  work  of  a  firm  may  arise  not 
merely  as  between  union  and  non-union  workers,  or  as  be- 
tween union  workers  and  foremen  or  other  officials.  It  may 
arise  even  as  between  union  workers  regularly  employed  and 
other  union  workers  newly  hired  when  work  is  slack.  During 
slack  seasons  every  additional  worker  hired  from  outside 
would  naturally  reduce  the  employment  and  earnings  of 
those  already  on  the  job,  whose  work  such  a  new-comer  would 
be  permitted  to  share.  Hence,  the  rule  of  preference  at  such 
times  operates  necessarily  against  some  union  members  and 
in  favor  of  others,  who  have  by  seniority  in  employment  es- 
tablished a  prior  claim  to  the  available  work.  Without  the 
protection  of  such  a  rule,  union  workers  of  long  standing 
might  find  themselves  actually  displaced  from  their  jobs  as  a 
result  of  an  overcrowding  of  section  produced  by  the  manage- 
ment in  adding  new  workers  when  none  were  needed.     An 


402      CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

illustration  of  this  type  of  diversion  of  work  is  presented  in 
the  following  case.^^" 

The  union  in  this  instance  complained  that  the  work  of 
off-pressing  on  knickerbockers,  which  until  recently  had  been 
done  by  the  regular  pressers  on  trousers,  was  now  being  given 
to  two  new  men.  The  union  contended  that  the  company 
had  no  right  to  hire  these  pressers  while  regular  pressers  were 
available.  The  company  repHed  that  inasmuch  as  the  work 
was  hour  work  they  were  free  to  hire  whomsoever  they  wished 
to  do  it.  The  union  then  pointed  out  that  there  was  not  suffi- 
cient work  for  the  regular  pressers  and  that  if  any  additional 
pressing  was  to  be  done  it  should  be  done  by  regular  pressers. 
Investigation  showed  that  the  regular  pressers  were  easily 
capable  of  turning  out  the  additional  work  on  knickerbockers. 
Under  the  circumstances  the  Trade  Board  sustained  the  con- 
tention of  the  union  and  directed  the  work  in  question  to  be 
given  again  to  the  regular  pressers. 

The  practical  problem  to  which  all  these  efforts  of  the 
union  are  addressed  is  that  of  distributing  the  available  work 
among  union  people  in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  for  them  the 
greatest  possible  stability  in  emplojniient.  This  is  the  object 
also  of  the  union's  policy  favoring  the  inside  as  over  against 
the  contract  shop  with  the  ultimate  elimination  of  the  latter. 
The  principle  of  preference  has  been  extended  so  as  to  make 
this  policy  a  recognized  policy  of  the  market.  The  contractor 
is  the  least  stable  factor  in  the  industry.  Not  only  is  he 
financially  less  secure,  as  a  rule,  than  the  independent  manu- 
facturer. His  relatively  small  investment  of  capital  tends  to 
make  him  less  conservative  both  as  a  business  man  and  as  an 
employer.  Besides,  his  activity  in  production  tends  to 
fluctuate  more  markedly  with  the  seasons  than  does  that  of 
the  inside  manufacturer.  But  whatever  the  precise  reasons 
for  the  policy,  preference  in  the  distribution  of  work  is  within 
certain  important  limits  to  be  accorded  to  the  inside  shops. 
Without  going  into  the  still  unsettled  question  of  the  status 
under  the  agreement  of  the  contract  shop,  we  may  briefly 
indicate  in  the  following  pages  the  manner  in  which  the  prin- 
ciple of  preference  operates  in  this  field. 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    403 

In  the  report  of  a  committee  of  which  Professor  Tufts  was 
chairman  and  which  was  appointed  by  him  to  work  out  a  plan 
for  dealing  with  the  contractors'  situation,^^^  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing recommendation : 

"  That  in  slack  season,  firms  shall  endeavor  to  make  such  dis- 
tribution of  work  between  their  own  shops  and  their  con- 
tractors as  shall  reduce  as  much  as  possible  irregularity  of 
employment,  and  especially  prevent  the  sudden  cessation  of  all 
employment  for  persons  who  are  employed  either  in  their  own 
shops  or  by  the  contractors.  Provided,  this  shall  not  be  under- 
stood as  opposing  a  general  poHcy  of  change  from  contracting 
to  work  in  inside  shops." 

Inasmuch  as  union  workers  are  employed  in  contract  shops 
no  less  than  in  inside  shops,  it  is  obvious  that  the  union  is 
concerned  that  no  discrimination  be  practiced  against  its 
members  irrespective  of  where  they  are  employed.  This  con- 
sideration must,  consequently,  limit  the  application  of  pref- 
erence as  against  workers  in  contract  shops.  As  a  matter  of 
practice,  therefore,  preference  of  this  nature  relates  prin- 
cipally to  the  future  and  to  new  situations,  rather  than  to 
conditions  already  existing  and  fixed  by  usage.  It  has  par- 
ticular significance,  of  course,  in  dull  times,  when  the  ques- 
tion of  dividing  the  work  among  the  people  entitled  to  it 
presents  a  real  problem. 

To  illustrate:  A  dispute  came  to  the  Trade  Board^^^ 
over  the  sending  out  by  a  firm  of  several  hundred  overcoats 
to  contractors  in  the  course  of  a  month.  The  union  con- 
tended that  these  garments  should  have  been  made  in  the 
firm's  own  shops,  for  the  workers  were  being  laid  off.  The 
Trade  Board  had  before  it  the  question  as  to  how  decisions 
are  to  be  made  with  reference  to  where  work  shall  be  done; 
in  other  words,  as  to  the  respective  claims  upon  the  work  of 
the  inside  and  the  outside  shop  workers.  The  chairman  based 
his  ruling  upon  the  above  mentioned  report  of  the  committee 
to  the  effect  that  contract  work  should  not  be  encouraged 
and,  by  implication,  that  garments  should  be  made  in  inside 
shops  as  far  as  practicable.  He  stated:  "  In  the  spirit  of 
this  report,  which  has  been  generally  accepted  as  sound,  some 


404     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

of  the  labor  managers  have  advised  their  firms  not  to  send 
out  work  to  new  contractors  without  first  conferring  with  the 
union.  The  results  show  the  wisdom  of  this  policy.  In  the 
interests  of  harmony  and  a  sound  development  of  the  market, 
the  Trade  Board  urges  that  such  conference  be  had  in  all 
cases." 

The  division  of  work  between  the  people  employed  in  the 
inside  shop  of  a  firm  and  those  employed  by  a  contractor  to 
whom  the  firm  sends  part  of  its  work,  depends  on  the  claim 
to  the  work  established  by  the  contractor  through  past  prac- 
tice. Concretely,  if  a  firm  has  been  accustomed  to  do  60 
per  cent,  of  its  work  in  its  own  shops  and  to  distribute  the 
other  40  per  cent,  among  two  designated  contractors  in  the 
proportion  of  three  to  one,  then,  even  in  slack  season,  the 
workers  in  the  two  contract  shops  are  entitled  to  30  and  10 
per  cent.,  respectively,  of  all  the  work  this  firm  may  have, 
while  the  people  inside  will  have  no  grievance  if  they  continue 
to  receive  at  least  the  customary  60  per  cent,  of  the  total.  If, 
however,  the  firm  has  no  such  existing  relations  with  con- 
tractors, whose  workers  may  rightfully  expect  to  share  in  the 
work  up  to  the  usual  proportion,  the  firm  may  not  send  out 
work  to  any  new  contractor  without  previous  consent  from 
the  union,  particularly  in  slack  season.  The  claim  of  a  con- 
tractor's workers  to  share  in  a  firm's  work  must  be  estab- 
lished by  usage  over  a  period  of  time.  Thus,  if  in  the  busy 
season  the  firm  has  more  work  than  can  be  conveniently 
turned  out  by  its  own  shops,  it  may,  by  an  understanding 
with  the  union,  send  the  excess  of  work  to  be  made  in  an  out- 
side shop.  After  that,  whenever  the  firm  is  again  in  the  posi- 
tion of  having  to  send  out  work  of  that  character,  the  same 
workers  have  a  first  claim  upon  such  work.  But  no  greater 
proportion  of  the  firm's  work  may  be  sent  out  even  to  these 
workers  than  they  had  previously  received  from  the  firm  in 
question.  Where  a  contractor  has  been  accustomed  to  re- 
ceive a  definite  proportion  of  the  firm's  work,  whether  in  or 
out  of  season,  his  workers  have  a  claim  to  share  in  that  work 
to  the  usual  extent  even  while  the  inside  shop  is  slack. 

Some  light  is  thrown  upon  this  somewhat  complicated 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    405 

system  of  preference  by  a  few  typical  cases.  In  one  case^^^ 
the  union  complained  that  a  firm  when  slack  had  diverted 
work  from  its  coat-shop  to  two  contractors,  and  requested 
that  the  sending  out  of  work  be  stopped  and  the  firm's  work- 
ers be  paid  for  that  already  made  outside.  The  firm  an- 
swered that  it  had  sent  work  out  when  its  workers  were 
employed  full  time  and,  once  begun,  it  should  now  be  per- 
mitted to  continue  to  do  so  when  its  own  shop  was  somewhat 
slack.  The  evidence  submitted  to  the  Trade  Board  showed 
that  until  very  recently  the  workers  had  been  in  the  shop  44 
hours  per  week,  and  also  they  had  had  fairly  full  employ- 
ment. In  view  of  these  facts  the  Trade  Board  ruled  that  "  in 
sending  out  work  the  firm  has  not  been  acting  improperly 
and  it  rules  adversely  on  the  union's  request  that  the  firm's 
employes  be  paid  for  this  work.  It  rules,  further,  that  while 
work  is  slack  the  firm  may  continue  to  send  out  the  same  pro- 
portion of  its  work  (namely,  9.6  per  cent.),  to  the  two  con- 
tractors it  has  sent  them  since  September,  but  that  to  send 
them  a  larger  proportion  or  to  send  coats  to  another  con- 
tractor would  be  improper  and  contrary  to  a  just  claim  of  its 
workers." 

In  the  foregoing  decision  the  Trade  Board  proceeded  on 
the  assumption  that  a  claim  had  been  established  on  the 
part  of  the  contractors  to  a  definite  share  in  the  firm's  work, 
and  that  to  this  extent  the  workers  directly  emploj'^ed  by 
the  firm  could  claim  less  than  the  total  of  work  even  when 
slack.  In  the  following  case  no  such  established  relation 
between  the  firm  and  the  contractor  existed  and  it  was  not, 
therefore,  at  liberty  to  send  him  work  without  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  union  while  any  of  its  own  employes 
were  working  short  time. 

The  union  complained  on  this  occasion^^*  that  a  firm  had 
sent  work  to  contractors  against  the  orders  of  the  Trade 
Board,  and  that  this  action  had  caused  a  stoppage  of  the 
entire  shop.  The  firm  admitted  sending  work  to  contrac- 
tors but  contended  that  the  shop  generally  had  been  work- 
ing full  time  with  overtime  for  four  weeks  prior  to  the  stop- 
page, though  some  of  the  sections  might  have  less  than 


406     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

full-time  work  owing  to  the  character  of  work  being  made 
in  the  shop.  The  Trade  Board  finding  the  firm  at  fault  in 
the  matter  held  that  "  the  principle  is  fairly  well  estab- 
lished that  work  is  not  to  be  sent  outside  when  the  people 
in  the  inside  shop  are  working  short  time.  This  does  not 
apply,  of  course,  in  cases  where  the  division  of  work  be- 
tween inside  and  outside  shops  has  been  recognized  or  where 
certain  work  has  been  made  outside  regularly.  In  this  case 
there  is  no  question  that  the  work  sent  outside  belonged  to 
the  inside  shop." 

A  certain  preference  is  due  to  the  workers  in  the  inside 
shop  even  where  by  agreement  or  usage  a  firm  has  estab- 
lished definite  relations  with  a  contractor,  in  accordance 
with  which  the  firm  is  entitled  to  send  work  out  to  such 
contractor  in  a  fixed  proportion  of  its  total  work.  For  this 
proportion  is  intended  as  a  practical  maximum,  not  to  be 
exceeded  even  temporai'ily.  The  firm  may  not  withhold 
work  from  its  inside  shop  and  send  its  garments  out  to  con- 
tractors in  excess  of  the  established  proportion.  This  issue 
came  up  before  the  Trade  Board^^^  through  the  complaint 
of  the  union  that  a  certain  firm  had  closed  down  its  inside 
coat  shop  and  was  sending  out  its  work  to  outside  shops. 
The  work  sent  out  in  this  case  was  rush  work.  The  firm  was 
the  one  in  whose  favor  the  Trade  Board  had  previously 
ruled  (see  p.  405),  permitting  it  to  send  not  to  exceed 
9.6  per  cent,  of  its  coats  to  contractors.  The  firm,  appar- 
ently without  the  knowledge  of  the  labor  manager,  had 
placed  its  own  interpretation  upon  that  decision  and  had 
sent  more  than  15  per  cent,  of  its  work  out,  expecting  to 
even  this  up  later.  The  impartial  chairman  disallowed 
such  procedure,  stating :  "  This  was  not  the  intention  of 
the  Trade  Board.  It  did  not  expect  the  firm  to  go  ahead, 
exceed  the  percentage  allowed,  and  even  up  in  the  course 
of  time."  The  Board  therefore  directed  that  no  more  coats 
be  sent  to  contractors  until  the  total  sent  them  since  the 
date  of  the  previous  decision  no  longer  exceeded  9.6  per 
cent,  of  the  total,  and  from  that  time  forth  to  remain  within 
the  percentage  allowed. 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    407 

Several  months  later  this  firm  was  again  the  subject  of 
complaint.^^®  The  union  charged  that  the  firm  was  about 
to  close  its  tailor  shop  and  to  send  the  work  to  contractors. 
The  union  requested  the  Trade  Board  to  direct  that  no 
work  be  sent  outside  while  the  tailor  shop  was  closed.  The 
firm  argued  that  it  was  privileged  by  Trade  Board  decision 
to  send  9.6  per  cent,  of  its  coats  to  contractors;  that  for 
several  weeks  no  coats  had  been  sent  out;  that  the  firm  had 
fallen  below  the  permitted  quota;  and  that  the  number  to 
be  sent  out  while  the  tailor  shop  was  closed  would  not  bring 
the  total  above  the  percentage  authorized  by  'the  Trade 
Board.  The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board,  taking  all  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  into  account,  ruled  against  the 
position  of  the  firm  both  on  the  ground  of  its  technical 
rights  and  on  the  score  of  expediency.  The  chairman  ruled 
that  "  while  the  firm  may  close  the  tailor  shop  if  it  chooses, 
it  may  not  send  the  work  out  to  contractors  while  the  shop 
is  closed." 

Within  a  few  weeks  of  this  decision  the  union  com- 
plained^^ ^  of  its  violation  by  the  firm  and  requested  that  the 
people  be  paid  for  work  that  should  have  been  given  them. 
The  firm  admitted  sending  out  some  work  but  stated  that 
the  bulk  of  the  work  sent  out  consisted  of  Palm  Beach 
coats,  which  had  not  been  made  in  the  inside  shop,  and 
that  the  only  other  work  sent  out  was  rush  orders  which 
would  have  cost  the  firm  valuable  patronage  if  delayed. 
In  ruling  upon  this  complaint,  the  chairman  stated:  "This 
is  not  the  first  time  that  this  firm  has  chosen  to  violate  a 
decision  of  the  Trade  Board.  The  firm  must  have  known 
that  it  would  have  to  meet  the  problem  of  rush  orders  and 
should  have  taken  the  matter  up  with  the  union  or  the  Trade 
Board  and  not  have  gone  ahead  in  the  face  of  a  Trade 
Board  decision.  The  Board  rules  that  *  *  *  the  Palm 
Beach  coats  not  made  inside  previously  might  be  sent  out- 
side during  the  week  the  shop  was  closed  without  violating 
the  decision.  The  workers  are  to  be  paid  for  the  other 
coats  sent  outside  while  the  shop  was  closed." 

An  aggravated  form  of  diversion  of  work,  even  more 


408     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

serious  than  a  violation  of  the  preferential  principle  within 
the  shop,  is  the  sending  by  a  firm  of  its  work  to  a  non-union 
outside  shop.  Non-union  workers  have,  of  course,  no  claim 
to  share  during  slack  season  in  the  work  of  a  firm  operating 
under  the  agreement  with  the  union.  Nor  has  such  a  firm 
a  right  to  send  any  of  its  work  at  any  time  to  a  contractor 
who  does  not  employ  union  workers,  whether  the  purpose 
be  to  reduce  costs  or  not.  The  only  exception  to  this  rule 
is  a  situation  in  which  no  union  contractor  is  available  to  do 
the  work  required  by  the  firm,  and  even  then  an  under- 
standing with  the  union  is  called  for. 

A  case  in  point^^®  is  one  in  which  the  union  requested  the 
Trade  Board  to  order  a  certain  firm  to  discontinue  sending 
work  to  a  non-union  shop.  The  firm  disclaimed  knowledge 
of  whether  the  shop  was  union  or  non-union  until  complaint 
and  investigation,  after  which  it  had  withheld  further  work 
pending  the  hearing.  The  chairman  of  the  Trade  Board 
stated  at  the  hearing  that  "  under  the  preferential  clause 
of  the  agreement,  firms  are  to  give  preference  to  contractors 
operating  union  shops.  This  places  upon  the  firm  the  re- 
sponsibility of  ascertaining  in  advance  whether  the  con- 
tractor is  operating  a  union  or  a  non-union  shop."  The 
Board  directed  that  no  more  work  be  sent  to  this  contrac- 
tor. The  question,  of  whether  union  contractors  were  avail- 
able or  whether  the  work  could  be  made  inside  was  left  to 
be  met  jointly  by  the  firm  and  the  union. 

In  a  competitive  industry  in  which  labor  costs  are  a  fac- 
tor of  weight,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  some  manufacturers 
will  seek  an  advantage  over  competitors  by  an  attempt  to 
evade  the  union  regulations  and  labor  standards.  One 
method  of  doing  this  without  declaring  open  war  upon  the 
union  is  to  divert  some  distinct  part  of  their  work  to  non- 
union shops  and  to  justify  this  on  technical  grounds.  The 
agreement,  however,  is  broad  enough  in  its  scope  to  prohibit 
any  such  evasion.  The  preference  principle  contemplates 
that  whatever  work  a  manufacturer  who  is  a  party  to  the 
agreement  may  have,  belongs  of  right  to  union  workers. 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    409 

A  house  cannot  be  part  union  and  part  non-union  if  the 
preferential  shop  is  not  to  break  down. 

The  issue  has  arisen  in  the  Chicago  market  on  several 
occasions.  In  one  case^^^  the  union  raised  a  question  with 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  as  to  contract  work  being  placed 
by  X  and  Co.  with  non-union  firms.  Investigation  showed 
that  a  dual  organization  was  being  maintained.  Under  the 
name  of  X  and  Co.  the  firm  had  been  and  was  doing  a  special 
order  business  as  always,  the  suits  being  cut  and  trimmed 
in  its  own  shop  and  the  garments  then  sent  into  union  con- 
tract shops  to  be  manufactured.  Some  weeks  previous  to 
the  complaint,  however,  the  same  people  had  organized  as 
Y  and  Z  to  engage  in  a  mail  order  business.  This  firm  was 
having  all  of  its  manufacture,  including  cutting,  done  by 
contractors.  Among  the  contractors  were  two  union  houses 
in  Chicago,  a  well-known  non-union  house  in  Chicago,  and 
a  non-union  establishment  in  a  southern  state.  The  union 
contended  that  its  agreement  covered  men's  and  children's 
overcoats,  suits  and  pants  manufactured  by  X  &  Co.,  and 
that  those  manufacured  for  it  and  distributed  under  the 
name  of  Y  and  Z  were  a  part  of  its  business.  It  contended 
that  to  have  any  part  of  these  manufactured  in  non-union 
houses  here  or  elsewhere  was  a  violation  of  the  agreement. 

In  deciding  this  question  the  Board  of  Arbitration  sus- 
tained the  union's  contention,  ruling  that  "  the  agreement 
between  X  and  Co.  and  the  union  covers  all  men's  and  chil- 
dren's overcoats,  suits  and  pants  manufactured  by  X  and 
Co.  It  matters  not  that  new  lines  of  these  are  taken  on  or 
how  they  are  distributed.  It  (the  Board)  rules  specifically 
that  the  work  sent  into  contract  shops  and  then  distributed 
under  the  name  of  Y  and  Z  is  covered  by  the  agreement 
and  must  be  made  in  union  shops.  It  is  obvious  that  to  rule 
otherwise  would  be  to  open  a  loop-hole  which  would  destroy 
the  agreement  in  effect.  The  Board  directs  that  all  'woolens' 
in  all  non-union  shops  and  as  yet  uncut  shall  at  once  be 
withdrawn  and  that  henceforth  none  shall  be  sent  to  any 
non-union  house.  This  applies  both  to  houses  in  Chicago 
and  to  those  outside.     No  penalty  is  imposed  in  this  case 


410     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

because  of  the  absence  of  proof  of  improper  intent,  and 
because  this  is  the  first  case  of  the  kind  to  come  before  the 
impartial  machinery  of  this  market." 

The  second  case  was  soon  to  follow,  however.^^^  The 
union  complained  that  B  and  Co.  had  been  violating  the 
agreement  by  sending  out  work  to  be  cut,  trimmed  and 
made  in  a  non-union  house,  and  requested  that  this  be 
stopped,  compensation  ordered,  and  proper  discipline  im- 
posed. The  answer  made  by  the  firm  was  that  a  distinct 
company,  not  B  and  Co.  and  not  under  agreement  with  the 
union,  had  sent  out  the  work  in  question,  and  that  this  dis- 
tinct company,  C  and  Co.,  had  a  right  to  do  what  it  had  been 
doing. 

The  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Arbitration  ruled  against 
the  contention  of  the  management  that  C  and  Co.  was  sep- 
arate and  distinct  from  B  and  Co.,  had  no  agreement  with 
the  union,  and  could  send  its  work  where  and  as  it  wished. 

"  The  fact  is  that  while  there  are  two  corporations,  the  one 
is  an  oif-shoot  of  the  other  and  is  being  used  to  solve  the  prob- 
lem of  this  other ;  their  finances  are  related ;  their  management 
and  control  are  one.  For  the  purpose  of  manufacture  they  are 
to  be  regarded  as  one.  To  rule  otherwise  would  be  to  open  a 
loop-hole  which  would  make  it  possible  for  any  firm  to  rid  itself 
of  the  responsibilities  it  has  assumed  under  the  existing  agree- 
ment. Moreover,  the  manufacture  of  the  C  line  and  the  manu- 
facture of  the  B  line  were  conducted  as  one  business  last  year. 
Sending  out  the  C  work  this  year  is  a  diversion  of  work  from 
B's  workers.     It  may  not  be  done. 

"  *  *  *  The  work  was  sent  into  the  non-union  house  under 
circumstances  that  the  chairman  feels  a  penalty  should  be 
imposed.  He,  therefore,  orders  not  only  that  there  be  no  fur- 
ther violation  of  the  agreement,  but  also  that  the  firm  shall  pay 
$2.50  for  each  suit  sent  to  date  into  this  non-union  house.  This 
is  to  be  paid  to  the  firm's  workers  with  claims  upon  this  work, 
To  what  workers  it  shall  be  paid,  and  how  it  shall  be  divided 
among  them,  will  be  arranged  in  conference  by  the  labor  man- 
ager for  the  firm,  a  representative  of  the  union,  and  the  chair- 
man." 

The  rule  that  the  union  workers  of  a  firm  have  a  claim 
upon  all  the  productive  work  that  the  firm  may  have  to  give. 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    411 

applies  particularly  to  such  work  as  has  been  done  by  them 
on  previous  occasions  since  the  signing  of  the  agreement. 
In  such  a  case  the  workers'  claim  upon  the  work  in  question 
is  not  only  established  by  implication  through  the  prefer- 
ential provisions  of  the  agreement.  It  has  the  additional 
sanction  of  past  practice  to  support  it.  The  manufacturer 
is,  therefore,  not  free  to  send  out  any  work  thus  belonging 
to  his  union  employes,  except  such  as  is  in  excess  of  his 
capacity,  and  to  have  it  done  at  reduced  cost  elsewhere. 
Especially  where  the  outside  house  is  a  non-union  house — 
even  though  no  union  contractor  be  available  for  the  work — 
the  recent  decisions  of  the  impartial  chairman  on  the  subject 
stamp  such  diversion  of  work  as  clearly  unlawful.  The 
problem  has  arisen  particularly  in  connection  with  canvases 
and  linings,  which  some  firms  have  been  making  in  their 
own  shops.  Finding  that  they  could  obtain  them  more 
economically  outside  through  specialty  houses  employing 
non-union  help,  some  of  these  firms  have  proceeded  to  send 
out  their  linings  and  similar  parts  to  be  made  up  under  con- 
tract or  bought  them  ready-made  according  to  specification. 
One  of  the  first  cases  of  this  particular  type^^^  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  impartial  chairman  as  Case  No.  757 
was  that  of  a  firm  which  had  sent  out  one-piece  linings  to 
be  made  in  a  non-union  house.  The  Trade  Board  referred 
the  case  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  as  involving  a  market 
problem,  and  Chairman  Millis  ruled  as  follows: 

"  The  question  here  is  whether  a  firm  making  linings  when 
the  agreement  was  signed  can,  in  the  interest  of  economy,  divert 
this  work  to  an  outside  house  when  this  reduces  the  amount  of 
employment  for  the  firm's  union  workers.  The  general  prin- 
ciple involved  has  become  fairly  well  defined  and  recognized  in 
the  market.  Work  may  not  be  transferred  by  one  firm  to 
another  for  the  sake  of  reducing  costs  because  it  reduces  the 
amount  of  work  available  for  the  firm's  union  workers." 

After  this  decision  had  been  rendered  the  union  endeavored 
to  have  it  applied  generally  in  the  market  wherever  there 
had  been  a  diversion  of  work  made  inside  at  the  time  or 
since  the  existing  agreements  were  signed.    In  this  the  union 


412     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

was  not  successful,  so  that  it  was  obliged  to  file  similar  com- 
plaint against  a  number  of  other  firms  which  were  not  oper- 
ating in  accordance  with  the  decision.  Extended  argument 
by  both  sides  before  the  full  Board  of  Arbitration^^^  led  to 
a  decision  from  which  the  representative  of  the  firms  on  the 
Board  dissented  but  which  reaffirmed  the  ruling  of  the  Chair- 
man in  Case  No.  757a.  The  decision  set  forth,  among  other 
things,  the  following: 

"  The  Board  cannot  rule  otherwise  than  that  the  agreement 
covers  for  each  house  the  different  branches  and  parts  of  manu- 
facture engaged  in  at  the  time  the  agreements  were  entered  into. 
If  it  were  ruled  that  some  part  of  manufacture  was  not  covered 
by  the  agreement  it  would  be  to  rule  that  any  part  a  firm 
wished  to  divert  was  not  covered  by  the  agreement,  unless  the 
Board  should  legislate  and  arbitrarily  say  that  certain  things 
would  be  excepted.     The  Board  is  not  a  legislative  body. 

"  The  Board  and  the  Trade  Board  have  made  ruHngs  in  dif- 
ferent types  of  cases  that  have  direct  bearing  on  this  situation 
insofar  as  it  involves  diversion  of  work,  without  understand- 
ing, to  be  made  under  contract.  More  than  once  has  it  been 
ruled  that  a  firm  may  not  send  out  work  to  be  done  under  con- 
tract except  that  in  excess  of  its  capacity.  The  only  excep- 
tion made  is  where  a  firm  has  all  the  time  divided  its  work 
between  its  own  shop  and  a  contract  shop.  There  the  cus- 
tomar}^  division  has  been  approved.  The  ruling  has  been  ac- 
cepted. In  the  cases  now  before  the  Board  it  has  not  been  a 
question  of  getting  an  excess  of  work  made  up  but  a  question 
of  getting  it  done  more  economically  and  at  less  cost.  In  con- 
tract cases  the  rulings  have  been  consistent  to  the  effect  that  a 
firm  may  not  divert  garments  from  its  shops  to  a  contract  shop 
merely  to  save  costs. 

"  Because  of  the  above  reason  and  the  feeling  that  any  diver- 
sion of  work  from  union  workers  would  lead  very  naturally  to 
complications  and  loss  of  good  will,  which  is  a  far  larger  asset 
than  any  savings  from  having  linings  and  canvas  fronts  made 
up  under  contract,  the  Board  rules  as  did  the  Chairman  in 
No.  757a    *    *    *" 

The  foregoing  decisions  establish  firmly  the  principle  that 
no  manufacturer  under  agreement  with  the  union  may  send 
out  work  to  non-union  houses  without  the  consent  of  the 
organization.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  may  such  a  manu- 
facturer accept  work  to  be  done  either  in  his  own  shops  or 


PRINCIPLE  OF  UNION  PREFERENCE    413 

with  his  assistance  in  other  shops,  for  the  account  of  a  house 
upon  which  the  union  has  declared  a  strike.  For  the  mak- 
ing of  such  "unfair"  work  is  not  only  giving  aid  to  the 
strike-bound  firm  agaiftst  the  union  in  the  struggle.  It  is 
also  contributing  to  that  extent  to  the  permanent  diversion 
of  work  from  the  union  workers  who  have  a  right  to  it.  In  the 
absence  of  an  agreement  outlawing  the  work  of  an  "unfair" 
house,  the  union  would  have  to  be  conceded  the  right  to 
strike  against  any  manufacturer  who  knowingly  joined  in 
the  attack  upon  the  union  by  accepting  such  work.  As  it  is, 
this  right  of  direct  action  is  superseded  in  Chicago  by  the 
assumption  bj'^  the  impartial  machinery  of  jurisdiction  over 
all  such  cases.  In  one  instance^^^  the  workers  in  a  certain 
house,  believing  that  the  work  in  the  shop  originated  in  a 
strike-bound  house  with  the  approval  of  the  union  stopped 
work  in  order  to  force  its  abandonment.  When  the  case  came 
to  the  Trade  Board  the  chairman  gave  the  following  ruling : 

"  Chicago  manufacturers  have  agreed  that  no  strike-bound 
work  shall  be  done  in  this  market.  The  position  of  the  Trade 
Board  with  respect  to  such  work  has  been  stated  clearly  in  past 
decisions.  It  is  not  only  unnecessary  for  the  union  to  take  sum- 
mar}"^  action  on  its  own  initiative,  but  such  action  amounts  to 
saying  that,  however  willing  the  union  may  be  to  submit  other 
questions,  it  is  unwilling  to  submit  the  question  of  strike-bound 
work  to  the  impartial  machinery  *  *  *  The  Trade  Board 
directs  that  hereafter  in  case  of  suspected  strike-bound  work 
the  union  take  the  matter  up  with  the  General  Labor  Manager. 
It  shall  be  given  precedence  over  all  other  business,  and  if  it 
cannot  be  adjusted  in  24  hours  it  shall  be  brought  to  the  Trade 
Board.  An  emergency  hearing  will  be  held  and  if  there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  work  is  strike-bound  the  Board  will  direct 
that  the  work  be  stopped  until  the  facts  can  be  ascertained." 


I 


O 


o 
O 


r-J     Ci 


o    ^ 


c  p 
o  &c 


« 


APPENDIX  I 

Index  to  Decisions  of  Impartial  Machinery  Cited  in  Part  III 

(a)  (b)  (c)  Date. 

1  H  393 5-1-1921 

2  H  116a ll-23-'16 

3  H  701   2-17-'19 

4  C  11    10-  7-'19 

5  C  407   10-20-'20 

6  C  130 4-  6-'20 

7  C  963  &  964 10-  1-'21 

8  C  854   7-28-'21 

9  H  BA    7-20-'14 

10  H  364a   7-16-'17 

11  H  293a   6-17-'15 

12  H  661a 2-25-'19 

18  H  69a 3-14-'21 

14  H  302 2-22-'21 

15  H  799 10-  7-'20 

16  H  382a   5-  9-'21 

17  H  133a   11-16-'16 

18  H  BA    nodate 

19  H  111   9-  7-'20 

20  H  170 10-23-'20 

21  C  365   9-80-'20 

22  C  692   4-12-'21 

23  C  424   11-  4-'20 

24  C  809   6-18-'21 

25  C  707a  &  19d    5-26-'21 

26  C  610a   3-16-'21 

27  C  802  6-14-'21 

28  C  751    5-28-'21 


(a)  Numbers  in  this  column  refer  to  corresponding  numbers  printed  above  the 

line  in  the  text  in  connection  with  decisions  cited. 

(b)  This  column  indicates  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Board  making  the  decision. 

e.  g.,  H=Hart,  SchaflFner  and  Marx;   C=Chicago  market  exclusive  of 
Hart,  SchaflFner  and  Marx. 

(c)  This  column  identifies  the  decision  by  its  own  serial  number. 

"  BA "  stands  for  Board  of  Arbitration  as  the  source  of  the  decision, 

when  it  has  no  serial  number. 
"  TB  "  stands  for  Trade  Board.    Wherever  the  number  alone  is  used,  the 

decision  is  by  the  Trade  Board. 
"  a "    indicates   that    decision    is   by    Board    of    Arbitration    on    appeal ; 
"  d  "  that  it  is  decided  directly  by  the  Board  of  Arbitration. 


416     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Date. 

29 

C 

968 

9-24-'21 

80 

C 

458 

12-  2-'20 

31 

c 

610a  

3-16-'21 

32 

H 

60 

7-16-'20 

33 

C 

893 

8-  6-'21 

34 

C 

480 

12-23-'20 

35 

C 

764  &  768 

6-16-'21 

36 

H 

BA  

5-  8-'21 

37 

H 

66 

8-  4-'20 

88^ 

C 

849  

7-  9-'21 

39 

C 

980 

9-10-'21 

40 

C 

970 

9-  7-'21 

41 

C 

486  

12-27-'20 

42 

H 

TB  

9-  5-'13 

48 

H 

370a 

10-11-'17 

44 

H 

690a 

Feb.  1919 

45 

H 

906 

l-15-'20 

46 

H 
H 

711a 

4-  8-'19 

47 

353a 

3-26-'21 

48 

H 

349 

3-19-'21 

49 

C 

1153  

12-12-'21 

50 

H 

905a 

2-  3-'20 

51 

C 

471  

12-10-'20 

52 

C 

627 

3-12-'21 

58 

C 

803 

6-19-'21 

54 

H 
C 

562a 

4-  4-'18 

55 

789 

6-  7-'21 

56 

C 

769  

5-21-'21 

67 

C 

377 

10-  6-'20 

68 

C 

454 

12-  l-'20 

59 

C 

804 

6-14-'21 

60 

C 

633  

3-14-'21 

61 

C 
C 

707a  &  19d 

5-26-'21 

62 

805  

6-13-'21 

68 

C 

611  

3-10-'21 

64 

C 

814  &  818 

6-22-'21 

66 

C 

870  

7-20-'21 

66 

C 
C 

878  &  874 

7-21-'21 

67 

863  

8-  5-'21 

68 

C 

824 

6-25-'21 

69 

H 

142 

10-  8-'20 

70 

H 

321  

2-  4-'21 

71 

H 

283 

2-ll-'21 

72 

C 

695  

4-14-'21 

APPENDIX  I  417 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Date. 

73 

C 

607  

3-12-'21 

74 

H 

BA  

5-  8-'21 

75 

C 

368 

10-  7-'20 

76 

H 
C 
C 

691a 

2-25-'19 

77 

46a  

2-26-'20 

78 

458  

12-  2-'20 

79 

C 

893 

8-  6-'21 

80 

C 

729 

5-21-'21 

81 

H 

350 

3-17-'21 

82 

H 

139 

10-  4-'20 

83 

H 

342 

3-  8-'21 

84 

C 

445  &  446 

12-  4-'20 

85 

C 

855  

7-14-'21 

86 

C 

794 

6-14-'21 

87 

C 

852  

7-13-'21 

88 

C 

867  

7-19-'21 

89 

C 

893 

8-  6-'21 

90 

C 

479 

12-23-'20 

91 

H 

168a  

1-  8-'15 

92 

H 

172 

11-  6-'20 

93 

H 
H 

365a 

2-25-'16 

94 

Joint  IMemo 

11-  7-'17 

95 

H 
H 

525a 

2-27-'18 

96 

87a  

9-20-'18 

97 

C 

834 

7-22-'21 

98 

H 

BA  

6-23-'15 

99 

H 

BA  

4-  2-'15 

100 

H 

BA  

6-21-'16 

101 

H 

BA  

ll-23-'16 

102 

H 
H 

253a  

3-16-'21 

103 

BA  

6-  8-'20 

104 

H 

522a 

5-  8-'18 

105 

C 

54 

l-28-'20 

106 

H 
H 

167  

10-28-'20 

107 

BA  

6-  5-'14 

108 

C 

524  ..^T^rrrrr. 

3-ll-'21 

109 

C 

882  

7-29-'21 

110 

C 

884  

8-  6-'21 

111 

C 

823  

7-  9-'21 

112 

C 
C 

1133  

12-14-'21 

113 

870  

8-  8-'21 

114 

C 

891  

8-  9-'21 

116 

C 

897  

8-  4-'21 

116 

C 

577  

3-  9-'21 

418     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

(a)  (b)  (c)  Date. 

117  C      890  8-  3-'21 

118  C      885  8-15-'21 

119  C      641  3-10-'21 

120  C      889  7-29-'21 

121  C      886  8-15-'21 

122  C      910  8-10-'21 

123  C      800  6-21-'21 

124  C      868 8-  3-'21 

125  H      90 8-20-'20 

126  C      845 7-  9-'21 

127  H      176 ll-10-'20 

128  H      343 3-  8-'21 

129  H      428 6-  3-'21 

130  H     BA  3-29-'17 

131  C      884  7-29-'21 

132  H      327 6-  3-'21 

133  C      883  8-  6-'21 

134  H      982 4-30-'20 

136  C      612  3-12-'21 

186  C      493 1-  4-'21 

137  H      289 2-17-'21 

138  C      862  7-22-'21 

139  H      136 10-  4-'20 

140  H      275 2-ll-'21 

141  H      199a 3-12-'17 

142  H      445a  12-12-'17 

148  H      325  4-30-'21 

144  C&H   BA  12-22-'19 

145  C&H   5d  2-25-'20 

146  C      10(1  3-31-'20 

147  C      9d  4-14-'20 

148  C&H   BA  4-14-'21 

149  C      18d  5-10-'21 

150  C      20d  7-  5-'21 

151  C      21d  7-  5-'21 

152  H     BA  8-30-'13 

153  H     326  2-24-'21 

154  H      381  4-  8-'21 

155  C      881  8-  2-'21 

156  C      669  4-  4-'21 

157  C      736  5-  9-'21 

158  C      404  11-  2-'20 

159  H      417a  8-28-'17 

160  C      859 7-22-'21 


APPENDIX  I  419 

(a)  (b)  (c)  Date. 

161  H  335a  5-31-'17 

162  H  967  4-  2-'20 

163  H  383  4-19-'21 

164  H  392a  3-21-'21 

165  H  193a 5-  2-'21 

166  H  456a  11-15-'17 

167  H  953 3-17-'20 

168  C  835  7-13-'21 

169  C  942  9-  6-'21 

170  C  318a,  378a,  507a 7-16-'21 

171  C  545  2-14-'21 

172  C  786 5-26-'21 

173  H  398a  8-16-'17 

174  H  436a 10-  3-'17 

175  C  31  ll-29-'19 

176  H  352a  6-29-'17 

177  C  1024  10-11-'21 

178  C  201a  6-  -'20 

179  H  BA  8-23-'20 

180  H  296a  -  -'15 

181  H  293 5-16-'21 

182  H  145 11-  9-'20 

183  H  314 2-28-'21 

184  H  116 7-  7-'20 

185  H  710  3-15-'19 

186  H  BA 4-  3-'18 

187  H  234a 5-  2-'21 

188  C  27  ll-20-'19 

189  C  27a 3-30-'20 

190  C  517  l-29-'21 

191  C  719  4-27-'21 

192  H  BA  8-30-'13 

193  C  351  9-22-'20 

194  C  40  12-24-'19 

195  H  303  2-18-'21 

196  H  160 .  . 10-22-'20 

197  C  629  3-ll-'21 

198  H  BA  6-17-'15 

199  C  858  8-  8-'21 

200  C  707  5-16-'21 

201  C  285  9-17-'20 

202  C  1150  12-14-'21 

203  C  502 1-12-'21 

204  C  1151  12-  8-'21 


420     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 

(a)  (b)  (c)  Date. 

205  C  1199  l-28-'22 

206  C  12d 8-12-'20 

207  C  761  5-13-'21 

208  H  78a  4-17-'14 

209  H  151  10-14.-'20 

210  H  866 12-  1-'19 

211  C&H   3d-suppl 3-  3-'20 

212  C  434 ll-20-'20 

213  C  437  ll-26-'20 

214  C  1082  &  1083  12-12-'21 

215  C  522  l-20-'21 

216  C  839 6-30-'21 

217  C  857 7-20-'21 

218  C  1021  10-25-'21 

219  C  15d  2-15-'21 

220  C  16d 2-17-'21 

221  C  757a  8-26-'21 

222  C  23d ll-29-'21 

223  C  638  3-17-'21 


APPENDIX  II 

A  comparison  of  the  earnings  for  a  full-time  week  re- 
ceived by  the  Chicago  clothing  workers  in  1911,  and  in  Sep- 
tember, 1919,  immediately  after  the  complete  organization 
of  the  Chicago  clothing  industry,  is  given  in  the  following 
tables.  The  charts  appearing  in  chapter  VII  are  based  upon 
these  data: 

TABLE  1 

Distribution  of  Men  Workers  in  Tailor  Shops  by  Wage  Groups, 

1911 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Earning  Group.  Amounts  Specified. 

Under  $5    .6 

$  5  and  under  $10 12.8 

10    «        "        16 53.4 

15    "        "       20 27.6 

20    "     over    6.8 

TABLE  2 

Distribution  of  Men  Workers  in  Tailor  Shops  by  Wage  Groups, 

September,  1919 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Earning  Group.  Amounts  Specified. 

Under  $5 0 

$  5  but  under  $10 0 

10    "        "        15 0.5 

15    "        "        20 1.5 

20    "        "        25 3.8 

25    "        "        30 12.6 

30    "        "        35 12.6 

35    "        "        40 14.6 

40    "        "        45 19.2 

45    "        "        50 16.2 

.50    "        "        55 8.4 

55    "        "        60 5.1 

60    "        "        65 3.1 

65  and  over 2.5 


422     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


TABLE  3 

DiSTElBUTION    OF    WoMEN    WoRKERS    IN    TaILOR    ShOPS    BY    WaGE 

Groups,  1911 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Wage  Group.  Amounts  Specified. 

Under  $5    8.8 

$  6  but  under  $10 40 . 8 

10    "        "        15 45.5 

16  and  over 5.5 


TABLE  4 


Distribution  of  Women  Workers  in  Tailor   Shops  by  Wage 
Groups,  September,  1919 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Wage  Group.  Amounts  Specified. 

Under  $5    0 

$  5  but  under  $10 0 

10    "        "        16 5.2 

16    "        "        20 13.7 

20    "        "       25 22.6 

25    «        "       30 23.4 

30    "        "       35 18.1 

36    «        «       40 8.7 

40    "        "       46 6.1 

46    "        "       50 1.7 

60    "        "       56 0.6 

56    «        "       60 1.1 

60    "        "       65 0.8 

65  and  over 0.1 


APPENDIX  II 


423 


TABLE  5 

Distribution  of  Cutters  by  Wage  Groups,  1911 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Wage  Group .  Amounts  Specified . 

Under  $5    0 

$  5  but  under  $10 0 

10    "        "        15 15.0 

15    "        "        20 27.6 

20    "        "        25 29.2 

25    "        "        30 23.2 

30  and  over 5.0 


TABLE  6 


Distribution  of  Cutters  by  Wage  Groups,  September,  1919 

Percentage  of 

Workers  Receiving 

Amounts  Specified. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2.4 

2.4 

7.0 

75.7 

. 10.9 

1.2 


Earning  Group. 

Under  $  5    . 

$  5  but  under 

$10 

10    « 

15 

16    " 

20 

20    " 

25 

25    " 

30 

30    " 

35 

35    " 

40 

40    " 

45 

45    " 

50 

424     CLOTHING  WORKERS  OF  CHICAGO 


TABLE  7 

Distribution  of  Workees  by  Wage  Groups,  Men  and  Women  in 
Tailor  Shops,  and  Cutters,  Combined,  1911 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Earning  Group.  Amounts  Specified. 

Under  $5    4.9 

$  5  but  under  $10 27.1 

10    "        "        15 44.7 

15    *'        "        20 15.1 

20    "        "        25 5.0 

25    "        "        30 2.6 

30  and  over 0.5 


TABLE  8 

Distribution  of  Workers  by  Wage  Groups,  Men  and  Women  in 
Tailor  Shops,  and  Cutters^  Combined,  September,  1919 

Percentage  of 
Workers  Receiving 
Earning  Group.  Amounts  Specified. 

Under  $5 0 

Under  $10 0 

$10  but  under  $15 3.7 

16    "        "        20 7.4 

20    "        "        25 13.2 

25    "        "        30 17.0 

30    "        "        35 16.6 

36    "        "        40 20.0 

40    "        "        45 10.0 

45    "        "        50 5.9 

50    "        "        55 2.8 

66    "        "        60 1.8 

60    "        "        65 1.0 

65  and  over 0.8 


M.  B.  Brown  Printinc  &  Binding  Co., 
New  York. 


V 


University  of  California  Library 
Los  Angples 

This  bookisDUEondiel^Lda^^  b«»°^- 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    000  676  842    8 


